Personal attack and outright claiming of an expertuse and superior knowkledge base you clearly don't have.poster. You are unable to mathematyically treat any subject I raised and refute with data anygthing I've said. I seriously question your qualifications to question anyone's qualifications on anything when you try something as ridiculous as this?

 

Considering that you are using the authority fallacy, the appeal to the crowd fallacy and the ad hominem attack again in a desperate attemtp to discredit me as a person (defamation), I offer you this citation to read and consider very carefully lest you go right over the edge totally in this argument and destrouy whatevver little credibility you actually have left on this topic, poster.

 

Read it carefully and see if it fits the data that I've piled up about your debate pattern for the last twenty pages.

 

A proper defense of thesis would not show this personal attack and DEFGMATION pattern. You would be talking about the F-15 at this point and trying to explain away your mistake about not knowing about aircraft airframe fatigue issues or manageing the usable life houes in the US air fleet, a subject of which you are glaringly oignorant of even the most basic opf facts if you keep saying Gplden Ragle and not realize that means 160 birds and not the 300+ that you claim.  

 

Behavior patterns. 

 

Stick to the facts please and ditch the personal attacks.

 

Herald

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, Eric Palmer pretty much exactly stated my position.  Fund the F-22 up to ~400 aircraft and buy new F-16s.  This is vastly cheaper and less risky than investing in the F-35, and a much more common-sense investment since we know that stealthy UCAVs will make the F-35 redundant anyway.

 

I still find it incomprehensible that we're using the rubric of "shrinking budgets" to forego buying 60 F-22s, and then turning around and spending over a trillion dollars on the F-35.

We all know that Darth is right about everything - never made a mistake in his life and never moved the goal posts here on SP to avoid having to say he was wrong.  Darth is certainly better qualified to make this judgement than all the Defense analysts, Professors, Senators, Congressmen and their staff combined.  He is clearly so qualified that he should be Defense Secretary and not Gates.  I am surprised that Obama has not seen this and appointed him.

Of course, some view SP as a debate session, others as a flame forum and a small cadre as a place to exchange information.  It would be nice to see that exchange take place without the beast of Company B telling everyone that he has access to top secret information and therefore cannot tell you why he is right.

 

Still - I view this F-22 thread as a dead issue here on SP.  We have kicked it around enough to know where each of us stands and how much information is available to make an honest decision.  Since it is now a political football and a sore spot in the paychecks of Union employees who will soon get pink slips - it is up to our elected representatives to make the call. 

I was particularly struck by Gates stup-id statement asserting that the Reaper could do what most of us would consider to be beyond the capability of the X-47 demoinstrater, which is basic air intrusion into a hostile IADS and successfully engage it. 

As for the rest of his speech, it generally conforms to the views of a man who has an idee' fixee aboiut fiuture wars and is clueless about the threat and potential for a Sudan or a DPRK blowup.

 

If he was also concerned about pirates he would then balance the fleet by pulling gun frigates out of mothballs, accelerating Sea-Scout procurement and putting the Global Hawk Maritime and the P-8 on the fast track

 

There is a lot of duplicity and mendacity Gates employs in his speeches that his ACTS betray. You know the truth about a ,man by what he does, not what he says.^1.

 

Clearly this apparatchik is pushing a political as opposed to force effectiveness agenda.

 

As for his forecast that the Russuans are five years away and the PRCs are ten years away from a fifth genration aircraft of their own? Dubious since the Russians are farther and the PRCs closer to an IADS threat that justifies an accelerated American counter effort than he speculates, and if THAT is the time frame as he so claims then that is even more reason to accelerate and not shut down our own aircraft tech base and manufacturing rersearch and procurement.

 

I am aware that again of the behavior pattern appears of the appeal to authority and the attempt to sound pseudoreasonable. Some posters may think this forms a valid core to a valid argument, but then again, I haven't seen any nimbers or correct force or tech analysis or even understanding of the "BIG PICTURE" by those opposing viewpoint to justuify the  appeal to authority argument. especially as Gates instruction from the interregnumist (political decisions driving these program decisions explained) seems to be from the news reports: is to wind up the Afghan and Iraq wars as quickly as possible and in such a manmner so as to appear as to not lose those lost wars.

 

The future BHO budget relies on this actual policy outcome and driver, as to prolong those conflicts robs the BHO budget of monies the interregnumist desirees and needs for his social programs.

 

No wars means no need for weapons.

 

That is a proven American political pattern and does not show political bias as every administration exhibits that behavior. This interregnum appears to need to lie about that factor and the fact that they are trying to skate from two wars they've made the political decision to lose.. I wonder why? Could they be pulling a Kissinger?  

 

Pakistan could collapse within six months: Report 

 

[quote]

 

Pakistan could collapse within six months in the face of snowballing insurgency, according to a top expert on guerrilla warfare.

Such dire prediction was given by David Kilcullen, a former adviser to top US military commander General David H. Petraeus.

Petraeus also echoed the same thought when he told a Congressional testimony last week that insurgency was one which could ?take down? Pakistan, which is home to nuclear arms and Al-Qaeda.

Kilcullen?s comments come as Pakistan is witnessing an unprecedented upswing in terrorists strikes and now some analysts in Pakistan and Washington are putting forward apocalyptic timetables for the country.

In an analysis piece, the New York Times cast doubts about the success of President Barack Obama?s strategy offering Pakistan a partnership to defeat insurgency, but the Pakistanis still consider India enemy number one.

Officially, Pakistan?s government welcomed Obama?s strategy, with its hefty infusions of American money, hailing it as a ?positive change?, the paper said.

But as the Obama administration tries to bring Pakistanis to its side, large parts of the public, political class and the military have brushed off the plan, rebuffing the idea that the threat from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which Washington calls a common enemy, is so urgent, it added.

 

 

 

I still find it incomprehensible that we're using the rubric of "shrinking budgets" to forego buying 60 F-22s, and then turning around and spending over a trillion dollars on the F-35.

The most expensive waste of the militaries' money in history.

 

Lets establish another hypothetical scenario just so others may see the big picture. 200 or so F-22's are available during the war in Vietnam. How many hundreds of F-105's, F-4's, bombers, and pilots are still alive today due to the Raptors overwhelming ability to function and eliminate targets in a high threat environment. Surely a trillion dollar multirole fighter is a waste if your current upgraded fleet can effectivley do their intended mission without being shot down in droves. Point being the much cheaper F-16 can perform the same mission as the F-35 as long as there are SUFFICIENT numbers of Raptors to provide cover. Oh and bye the way F-16's and F-22's are available now.

Phaid,

While it seems that you and I are at the point where we will have to agree to disgree. I think that you at least have to concede that the SecDef and USAF CoS are saying almost exactly what I said our strategy should be. One issue that I do see as an error on your part is the following. You are saying stealthy UCAVs will make the F-35 redundant. But that ignores the multirole nature and inherently more flexible F-35. I agree UCAV's will get to the point over the next decade where they will be capable of the same kinds of multirole performance as manned fighters. But that is the later half of next decade and through the 2020's. The first generation of the "non black world" UCAVs are likely to be like the fighters of Gen 1-3 which were specialist. The will emphasize ground attack, ISR and even air superiority capability. But not all in the same platforms the way F-16/35 do. 

It's just like Reaper. It has replaced the F-16 in some units. But that is because the mission of those units also changed with the times to be more ISR, CAS and strike related. Roles the Reaper excels at under specific conditions such as long duration operations at range. So how are you able to support the statement that UCAVs make the F-35 redundant considering the different requirements and roles? Also, since we know that the defense budget will shrink and that the need for 60 more Raptors is unjustified given the requirements, and that the need for a stealthy multirole fighter to replace multiple types of platforms is more crucial, why is the budget issue "incomprehensible" to you? To use an analogy. If you had a lot of money and needed x and y , you would buy x and y in desired quantities. But you are losing money while the demand for x is also shrinking while y remains constant, then what money you have left gets shifted away from x so that it doesn't affect the constant of y. Phaid, can you elaborate on that?   

-DA  

The poster said we would have great UCAV capabilities negating the need for manned aircraft such as the F-22 that he's seen demonstrated within five years., Now he puts that possibility  back to the late 2020s.

 

Having trouble keeping the asserted storyline straight here?

 

Concession that you don't know what you were talking about concerning UCAVs  noted and accepted as a confirmed datum point that you admit through self contradiction of own assertions, poster.^1

 

Herald

 

^1 the case for a thesis must be consistent and supported by opinion as well as fact!

 

Your hypothetical applied to todays situation means that the requirement for F-22s is reduced from 200 to ~52 with no adverse affects on the F-105s, F-4s and Bombers. As if, as long as I have ~52 Raptors, I can still provide adequate coverage because the amount of coverage needed has decreased. This is such a simple and easy to grasp concept. The problem is that the USAF and fans in the past have been so enthralled by technology and air to air combat that is has in fact become a religion to people. Gates stopping the F-22 at 187 to a lot of people including some of the posters here is the equivalent of telling a Christian that there is no Jesus. As the SecDef and USAF CoS said, some have become "obsessive" in their view and are out of touch with today's situation and needs. The same thing happened when the Aircraft Carrier took over after the Battleship. There was a period of overlap and people who could not fathom change of the situation could not see that times had changed. Thats what's going on here. History will remember Gates and people who think like him as visionary.

-DA 

 

-DA 

-DA

I did by stating what you said about UCAVs. You can't bluff your way out of this one poster.

 

Nor can you retract the statement you made pof accusing me of lying. That is a personal attack. The foifteenth you've made against me.

 

You need to prove your case or retract your statement or at least apologize, It is quite apparent that you think you can get away with bullying and mistating what you yourself said. 

 

That is on you.

 

My stgatement stands, this thread is the proof anmd if you don't like it, you need to pay closer attention to what you wroite poster as well as back yohr own assertions up with facts, for a change.

 

Its you that has made thos a personal contest. I just note the errors, and the lackm of any fact based opionions and now knowledge to claim what you claim. 

 

Would you at least try to stay on point and  supply some credible evidence to support your thesis as well as stop contradicting yourself?

It becomes increasingly obvious that your strident protests to the contrary that you've invested a bias so deep and complete into this subject that you cannot even keep your own story straight.

 

Its not my fault that you lost track of what you said. Pages 14-16 I think.

 

Herald

 

 

 

 

 

.

First problem is that there isn't anyone who can predict what amount of coverage that will be required. So cutting yourself short is wrong. Second problem is that you failed to address the fact that the need for a single engine stealthy ground pounder is negated if your current fleet can survive with adequate protection. The aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete because it could do the same job more effectivley, the F-35 cannot comparably perform the Raptor's mission requirement. And please spare me the overused fallacy that the F-35 is an adequate AA platform, it is speculation based on available technologies and theoretical anamolies and holds no merit. I keep saying that Nimitz class carriers are adequate but Gates must believe they won't be able to defeat Somali pirates because he sure hasn't cancelled the Gerald Ford class yet.