Posted on 01/31/2008 9:02:42 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
‘No pilots will be lost and overall war casualties will be dramatically reduced, which is what we are after in the first place.’
That may be what you are after, I’d prefer victory. I am also opposed to reducing the casualties of our enemies.
>Just what the Hell is going on!?<
We had better figure it out real quick. Right now I only have weird ideas running through my head and I don’t have enough tin foil to post them.
Being a member of our nation’s military, I’m not worried about victory as much as I am saving my fellow Airman, Seaman, Soldier, or Marine. While victory is never assured, we still have the most powerful military on the planet.
I believe my enemies should be suppressed by any means necessary, including death. I know that they will try to kill me just as hard as I try to kill them, if not harder. I want them to die just as much as you do. I don’t want my fellow soldiers to die.
Otherwise, I'd love to try and figure that one out.
Gonna have to table that bit of info for tomorrow. That is, if I'm not out shoveling a bunch of Algore's gloBULL warming off my driveway.
Don’t know about the other two guys, but Sprey hasn’t been involved in aircraft design for more than 20 years, and is a vociferous critic of Bush (and was of Reagan, too) and the Iraq/Afghani wars. This article is political, not technical - cheap and tawdry strawman arguments are set up only to be knocked down. The F-22 is a next-gen air superiority design intended to carry our air-to-air defenses into the coming decades. Sprey has become an irrelevant retromingent old fart who should have had the sense to age gracefully; like Carter, though, he likes to urinate all over US policy whenever he finds anyone who cares to print his ‘thoughts.’ He now owns a small audio and recording business; it’s been my pleasure not to give him thousands for products he makes that I otherwise would have purchased - a mini-boycott, if you will, as I do my best not to give money to moonbats.
’ I don’t want my fellow soldiers to die.’
Nor do I, friendly casualty-free war is a pipedream. The mission is what is most important. Once engaged in conflict, victory should always be the goal of our mission. Suppression for the sake of maneuver is great, but only to bring different fires on the target. Direct fires should be used for destruction/neutralization. Death or unconditional surrender should be our enemy’s only options.
$16 million - each 111 came with an additonal aircraft for parts.
This is one cool plane.
There’s a solid chance Sprey used similar arguments against the F-15s. Same argument, different decade. The F-16 was to the F-15 as the F-35 is to the Raptor(obviously).
Great video - thanks!
Didn’t the Abrams tank go a long way towards vindicating the deployment of the expensive, yet superior, combat vehicle? The authors speak of inevitable attrition, but is it?
It’s interesting that we were on the other side of this with the Sherman tank versus the Tiger, et al. so the superior machine is by no means the inevitable winner. I do worry about “overwhelming” tactics. Iraq just didn’t have the numbers.
Japan and Australia have both expressed interest in the F-22. No doubt we could find other customers for it if we were to open sales to our allies, but that’s currently against the law.
Trans=national Socialism and Trans-national corporatists are the global elites. High level military officials are politicos first and foremost.
That argument only makes sense if you not only have the BEST stuff, but you ALSO have a SUFFICIENT quantity of the best stuff.
The F-22 is like an expensive whore: real pretty and a fantastic performer, but in the end, nothing but a drain on the pocketbook when you could get a lot more action for a lot cheaper.
The F-22 program robbed our air force of funds that could have been more wisely spent.
Before the Gulf War in 1991, I recall watching Pierre Sprey on TV arguing that the M1A1 tank would fail in the desert, and was no match for the Russian tanks that Saddam had. His judgement doesn’t carry a lot of weight with me.
True, but if we'd only been able to afford 200 P-51's, that might not have worked out so well either.
At the rate things are going, the F-35's replacement will probably be as hot and lethal as Luke Skywalker's X-wing, but we'll only be able to buy three of them, and if those three go down the USAF will be toast.
Nowhere do these items talk about a dangerous threat that makes more F-22s mandatory.
It seems the writers advocate we don't develop a replacement for our old and obsolete fighters until the need actually arises. This might have been fine for WW II, but not in today’s world.
The writers also seems to believe that all wars in the future will be similar to our current war - they feel we should prepare to fight the last war again? Maybe they should look over toward Russia and China and check out the fighters they’ve developed. They should look ahead, not behind.
I want them to die just as much as you do. I don’t want my fellow soldiers to die.
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” - George S. Patton.
“They (and you) don’t have a clue as to the F-22’s full suite of capabilities”
Really...are you sure? Ok, Ace, I suppose you do? Please elaborate.
“Where did you and the Spey clowns ever get the idea that it’s not deployable?”
I said it’s not “currently” deployable - factor of maintenance hours per flying hour. This will improve, but the point they were making ( I think) is that it needs to spend too much time on the ground per sortie. If you really are as knowledgeable as you say, you’d understand that.
Enlighten everyone with your voluminous knowledge please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.