[spetznaz]

This attitude can easily be seen even in FR, where anything foreign is judged as 'crap' by a certain section. The truth is the reason the US has dominated air combat has been due to the optimal combination of superlative people, superlative training, superlative equipment, superlative tactics, and the funds and dedication required to enable that magical combination to exist. Start taking out aspects and facets of that and the machine will continue to run, but its efficacy and efficiency will be degraded. Take out enough of the mojo and one day you will get a VERY nasty surprise. Especially if the USAF/USN ever went against a foe country that is not cut from the usual cloth. I.E. not an Afghanistan, Somali, Iraq, Bosnia, Grenada, Panama, Libya, but rather something along the lines of a China. Destroying the useless KARI IADS used by Iraq is going to be quite different from the Chinese S-300/HQ-9 IADS, but hey ...they are all crap, right?

Have enough of these cuts and some day there will be a very nasty surprise waiting for folks when 'crap' takes out a US military asset.

[U-238]

Destroying the useless KARI IADS used by Iraq is going to be quite different from the Chinese S-300/HQ-9 IADS, but hey ...they are all crap, right?

The biggest worry is the S-400 missile.

[rbg81]

A key part of any future attack strategy is to degrade air defense with attacks by Unmannded Air Vehicles (UAVs) and long range, precision munitions. Only when these air defenses are sufficiently degraded would manned assets be sent in (even stealth ones). That being said, such degradation takes time and time is a luxury we may not have.

Pentagon planners (and politicians) are hoping that UAV technology will one day replace manned aircraft. I have no doubt that (one day) it will, but when is the big question. Right now its just a wish. Meanwhile, we are not taking the necessary investments in proven technology.