Posted on 08/21/2025 5:12:48 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The U.S. risks losing its air superiority by 2030 if it fails to build its next-generation aircraft in sufficient numbers.For a “strategic restraint” approach, where the new F-47 fighter and B-21 bomber are not for global policing but for credibly deterring great-power war in the Atlantic and Pacific. To achieve this, the U.S. needs a minimum of 200-300 F-47s and at least 145 B-21s. These numbers are essential to absorb combat losses, reassure allies, and deter adversaries like China and Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
Ask Linda.
1000 each...............
1000 each...............
> Can we even afford these numbers? <
That is a question that must be asked. A country can collapse by not having enough military power. A country can also collapse through reckless spending.
Fortunately, the adults are in charge now. My only worry is that Trump doesn’t seem to be too concerned about the deficit. Let’s hope he can find the right balance.
The balance does seem to be the key. Also, what about drones?
We started out at 132 B2’s, then went to 75, and ended up with 21 (now 20). Then went on a war rampage that could easily end up including Ukraine.
One of the many reasons that I have nothing good to say about the Neocons is that they kill off our military (no different with navy vessels or army size)...then run around the world starting wars.
“The U.S. risks losing its air superiority by 2030 if it fails to build its next-generation aircraft in sufficient numbers.”
This is something I believe that came out of the Eisenhower administration. It’s called a “gap” and it is fictional. The “nuclear” gap was just one of the things that neocons professed in order to keep building weapons systems. Every few years there is a “gap.”
China’s J20’s are probably the technology equivalent of the F-117. The J20 is a snack for the F22 Raptor.
> Also, what about drones? <
They certainly seem to be the future of combat. But what deterrent power do they have? 145 B-21s sitting at Air Force bases are quite a deterrent. 5,000 drones sitting in warehouses… much less so.
I’m not arguing that we must have 145 B-21s. It’s just something to think about.
Is how we spend the money making these vehicles important in calculating the full cost to the economy? As in by buying from ourselves and paying our suppliers and workers rather than any foreign vendors for parts or machining? Can that nuance make a huge difference in the impact of cost?
> The “nuclear” gap was just one of the things that neocons professed in order to keep building weapons systems. <
As we all know, Eisenhower was surprisingly blunt about that in his farewell address.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”
Interesting, since it was Eisenhower who warned against the military industrial complex.
This question is especially pertinent inThe era of drones. Warfare has changed. As it always does between wars.
via DuckDuckGo:
https://payloadspace.com › underutilized-capacity-on-dedicated-customer-falcon-9-rides-payload-research
“Underutilized Capacity on Dedicated Customer Falcon 9 Rides: Payload ...
Jan 8, 2025
SpaceX has pushed up average payload mass for Falcon 9 Starlink-dedicated launches to roughly 16,850 kg, or 96% of max capacity of 17.5 tons to LEO in a reusable configuration, maximizing every meter and kilogram offered by the rocket.”
That’s about a Mother of All Bomb’s worth.
Musk will get his newest ‘baby’ to work.
As for the F-47, build a two-engine stealth airframe and use F-35 engines, avionics and cockpit design. Only the airframe need be a development item.
National Security Journal
It should come complete with a centerfold for Lindsey Graham’s viewing pleasure.
As for manned aircraft, Trump would like to have a no-fly zone over Ukraine apparently.
There’s a risk in doing that with a manned aircraft.
Key question from the article, “ These numbers are essential to absorb combat losses,”….
Underestimating the enemy’s strength and capabilities, which the West has discovered about Russia, leads to huge losses. Our days of WW2 war production is long gone. China is not Russia, they are the manufacturing king on the planet.
Unfortunately, we have no military advantage against an allied Russia and China. Best to ditch the whole idea. Concentrate on avoiding war, not making war.
Fighting an enemy 6-8,000 miles away is a fools game, as our history has shown us.
One thing to think about considering drones is the airspace they operate in, that is usually below 5,000 ft. If they are to be part of the air-superiority equation, we will need some more advanced technology. (And maybe we do already, but hey, not for us to know about.)
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.