Posted on 06/16/2009 8:11:41 PM PDT by Nachum
There are other Guard units that were, or are, slated to receive the F-35.
That's all great but the cynic in me says that Obama will be in no hurry to buy more F-35s, and will use the delays as an excuse to curtail the program or worse. He sees DoD as a likely place to cut funding by slashing new weapons systems and cut spares procurement. Fighter wings are especially vulnerable to defense cuts in this Jimmy Carter redux environment. The pressure to slash defense will only increase as inflation takes hold and interest rates skyrocket as a result of his reckless spending spree. He's already crippled the CIA, signaled weakness to our enemies and undermined our missile defenses. Major weapons systems are all in danger.
YouTube: Barack Obama - Yes I Can Make Us Defenseless—Just Like Dec 7, 1941
-----
| Sovereignty alert: The first (and forgotten) priority |
| Posted: 09/29/08 TheHill.com |
...Unfortunately, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and ANG are facing a tremendous obstacle — the so-called bathtub effect on the fighter fleet. The bathtub effect refers to a graphic representation of the fleet of current fourth-generation fighter aircraft used by ANG that is running out of flying hours and thus being removed from the inventory (a downward trend), resulting in a flat line, when no new aircraft will be acquired. This shortage — or bottom of the bathtub — will remain for several years until the F-35 begins to trickle into the ANG (an upward trend).
The ANG will be disproportionately impacted because their aircraft are “hand-me-downs” from the USAF. The backbone of the ASA fleet, F-15s and F-16s, is aging rapidly with no timely replacements. A sobering fact: in eight years, 80 percent of fighter aircraft currently defending the U.S. will run out of flying hours and be decommissioned. However, its intended replacement, the F-35, will not even begin production until 2016 and may slip further behind....
YES.
Missiles have gotten very, very good. No stealth = sitting duck.
Unfortunately, the AI is still not there at all.
In the last test of an MQ-9 vs a manned F-15, the F-15 ate the MQ-9 for a light snack and kept going.
Drones right now have their place - it’s in ground attack, close air support, and Wild Weasel roles. It is *not* in air superiority or combat air patrol.
The BONEs are sent there to die.
Each airframe is almost a custom build. Parts (other than common avionics and some engine parts) don’t interchange.
One reason they are sitting at D-M.
Who is going to be firing those missiles within our own borders?
1995
Um, you mean other than invading forces or terrorists?
Oh, also? The Mexicans, who HAVE been running border incursions with their official army, have lost a number of their air defense missiles. Just the thing to bring down a US Air Force fighter getting too close to a drug smuggling plane.
Specifically, who?
You mean other than drug gangs and marauding rogue elements of the Mexican military? Do you really need any more?
I’ve never understood why military and commercial planes don’t have shrink-wrap, whatever, over their surfaces while in mothball.
The sun must decimate the aluminum and other surfaces of these multi million $ aircraft.
Not yet. The decision on whether or not more F-22s get built belongs to Congress, not Obowma and not Gates.
If our enemies are getting superior firepower within our borders, then we've got other problems an F35 isn't going to fix.
Quite a few. From the first Iraq War, here’s the loss list: http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html
Quite a few of our non-stealth aircraft bit the big one.
How about in Gulf War II?
And when you're finished with that, how many of our thousands of slow moving, non-stealth aircraft get shot down everyday within our territory?
Gulf War II? 43 losses to hostile fire.
And are you going to answer how many aircraft we've lost over our own territory?
Also, if that’s your criteria, then perhaps we should tell the Coast Guard that they should go back to rowboats instead of armed destroyers-in-all-but-name, because, hey, they’re not going to be shot at by hostile naval forces, right?
For that matter, let’s scale back the Navy, give them old Constitution-class sailing ships instead. I mean, what more do they need for domestic defense?
And hey, let’s take the Army and give them back the old Sherman tanks. I mean, what dangers do we face in domestic defense that can’t be resolved by Sherman tanks?
And then let’s take the C5s and C-17s away from airlift command. They won’t need to lift that much in domestic flights, right? So let’s give them back C-47s. That should work, right?
Same logic you’re using.
We don't need advanced capabilities over our own territory. F16's and F15's are more than capable.
BTW, how many F15's have been shot down in combat?
No, I’m not going to answer that. However, you are saying that “well, it has never happened before, why should we upgrade?”
Given that logic, we should still be issuing Winchester lever action rifles to the Army, because hey, we repelled the last invasion with those, they should be good enough, right?
As for the Gulf II losses...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_Iraq_War
I also refer you to: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Iraq_shooting_down.gif
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.
