[denydenydeny]

Obviously the authors are correct that using fast, high-flying platforms like the F-22 for ground attack is ridiculous.

But it’s equally ridiculous to decree that we no longer need an air-superiority fighter when there is still a China, a Russia, an Iran, out there. I don’t care what the qualifications of the authors are, that’s just stupid.

[rom]

No kidding. You have to keep your military up to date. Make it obvious to your enemies that they will be smacked down so hard with overwhelming superiority that they dare not TRY to attack.

That said, I’m very suspicious about the true costs of these aircraft, and how badly managed some of these programs are.

[RFEngineer]

“But it’s equally ridiculous to decree that we no longer need an air-superiority fighter when there is still a China, a Russia, an Iran, out there. I don’t care what the qualifications of the authors are, that’s just stupid.”

I agree with that. Is an enormously expensive F-22 the only answer though?

[dr_lew]

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.

[Tallguy]

One wonders if the authors have taken proper notice of the rate at which China is acquiring & building advanced aircraft — particulary the Sukhoi derivatives. Those planes are probably better than our F15’s when properly handled. The Chinese are also fielding AWACs. When the flight training catches up we’re going to have our hands full over the Taiwan Straits.

[CodeMasterPhilzar]

Amen. The idea of an "air-superiority" fighter is to be, well, superior to the enemy's capabilities. It is similar to the argument that the current crop of fighters are still capable. Yes, but French and Russian and Chinese designs are catching up. A dictum of air combat is - you never want to be in a fair fight. A fair fight means a fair chance of our men dying. Air combat is not about being in a fair fight. You want to take every single advantage you can, making it as lopsided and unfair to the other guy as possible.

The AF needs to continually update. We never want to let the bad guys catch up, period. Yes the F-22 is irrelevant in the skies over Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because in the first hours of the last three wars we've been in, we have wiped out the air defenses and air forces of our opponents. That "air superiority" is what allows our ground forces to operate in relative safety from devastating air attack. It also allows our attack aircraft to act with relative impunity and inflict great damage on the enemies ability to wage war.

These guys may have been on the technical design teams etc. But it seems they have little idea of the concept of operations and "bigger picture."

[FreedomPoster]

That says it in plain language for those unfamiliar with the issues, right there.