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.