On May 15, 8:44=A0pm, RapidRonnie <rapidron...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > "Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
> > > > generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in
particul=
ar
> > > > the Army=92s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force=92s F-22
advanc=
ed
> > > > warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
> > > > officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
> > > > similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."
>
> > > > "The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he
said=
> > > > results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, war****ps,
> > > > warplanes and armored vehicles."
>
> > > > [i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and
larger=
> > > > quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
> > > > I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from
th=
e
> > > > cold war.]
>
> > > > "To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end
of=
> > > > the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a
positio=
n
> > > > to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus,
the
> > > > services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr.
Gate=
s
> > > > said should be scrutinized."
>
> > > > [i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]
>
> > > > "The military, he declared, =93has ample and untapped combat power
i=
n
> > > > our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any =97
repeat=
,
> > > > any =97 adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in
the=
> > > > Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
> > > > There is a risk =97 but a prudent and manageable one.=94
>
> > > =A0 Nothing is static. =A0How long will the risk in the Gulf, the
Taiw=
an
> > > Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?
>
> > Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, 2pid.
> > That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!
>
> > Duh.
>
> > > How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again should
> > > we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?
>
> > It's "prudent and manageable" *now*, 2pid. There is no "again".
> > Nothing has "slipped away".
>
> > Duh.
>
> > > This is the debate on advanced weapons systems.
>
> > No, it isn't. The debate is what type of weapons systems we need to
> > invest in go up against current or projected adversaries, 2pid. What
> > Gates is saying is that we aren't very likely to face the teeming red
> > hordes that our military, to a large extent, is still built and
> > trained to oppose.
>
> > The military-industrial complex will *always* want to sell the latest,
> > greatest (and most expensive) technology whether it is actually needed
> > or not. Generals and admirals *always* want the latest and greatest
> > (and most expensive) technology out there.
>
> =A0As long as the military is expected to be the vanguard of technology
> it will always be cheaper to buy the best first and cry once.
>
> =A0The Navy Aviator's Creed states:
>
> "I am a United States Navy flyer:
>
> My countrymen built the best airplane in the world and entrusted it to
> me. They trained me to fly it. I will use it to the absolute limit of
> my power.
>
> With my fellow pilots, air crews, and deck crews, my plane and I will
> do anything necessary to carry out our tremendous responsibilities. I
> will always remember we are part of an unbeatable combat team - the
> United States Navy.
>
> When the going is fast and rough, I will not falter. I will be
> uncompromising in every blow I strike. I will be humble in victory.
>
> I am a United States Navy flyer. I have dedicated myself to my
> country, with its many millions of all races, colors, and creeds. They
> and their way of life are worthy of my greatest protective effort.
>
> I ask the help of God in making that effort great enough. "
>
> =A0Now, there's nothing in there that says "the most cost effective
> airplane in the world". Airplanes per se are not expensive to build:
> even modern supersonic jets are a small percentage of their purchase
> price if costed on a labor and materials basis. Doctors and lawyers
> and CPAs and salespeople and retired firemen build airplanes in their
> garages every day. Aircraft workers make, at most, thirty bucks an
> hour, plus benefits and retirement costs, which is a trivial sum in
> the great scheme of things. Aeronautical engineers are very lucky to
> make much over sixty or seventy thousand a year.
>
> =A0We could probably build jet fighters for a little more than a Cessna
> Citation goes for, if even that much, if we built them in quantities
> like the Russians did. The Russians built 35,000 MiG-21s at a cost to
> the State probably comparable to a good European s****ts car.
>
> =A0You want to ask our aviators to strap one on? I'm not going to.
2pid is more worried about MiG-17s. Jingoism aside, you build the
military to fight the battles it is anticipated that it will fight. F/
A-18s, F-15s, A-10s, F-16s, and so on, will do. We also have the F-35
coming on line at a far, far lower unit cost than the F-22 (which is
not available to Naval Aviators anyway...).
Using your model here, we should be ditching the M-16 in favor of a
high-tech rifle replacement (after all, you're not going to ask a
front-line infantry soldier to "strap one on", are you? They are 1960s
technology.), spending tons to develop the replacement for the M-1
Abrams tank (ditto an armor soldier), new Combat Engineer vehicles,
new nuclear ballistic missile subs, and on and on and on.
Or does spending ridiculously massive amounts to fight the wars of
bygone eras only apply to aircraft?
It would make far more sense, and far less expensive, to develop an
unmanned platform that was capable of firing AA missiles and could be
controlled by joystick from Omaha.
The only job of an air-superiority fighter is to allow freedom of
movement for ground and naval forces, trans****t capability and rotary-
wing aircraft at given times and places. That's it.
|
