Posted on 03/11/2018 10:55:15 AM PDT by BenLurkin
quantity is a quality all it’s own.....
**************
Agreed ... I’d love to see a fleet of basic easy to maintain medium bombers and fast light fighters with range and supercruise ,, particularly if they can forward control (decentralize) command of unmanned similar vehicles. The Germans had the best tanks in WW2 but they couldn’t go 200 miles without needing maintenance ,, the kind of maint that took them out of the fight ,, our crappy Shermans and the T37 were worlds better operationally... Having greater numbers would increase the numbers of available pilots going forward also...
Your Latin must really be bad. Keep it up and the prizes will mount.
It's a...I say it's a joke, son. You understand how White man might be politically incorrect?
I’ve seen just one B-2 go over the Lake of the Ozarks.
But every week, two or four Warthogs fly over.
You can really hear them coming.
I got it from the moment I read it. I just ignored it and addressed the first post to Tango.
Make that Eric
DETERRENCE!
Even Vlad isn't ready to take us on head to head. Or would you rather be like Canada?
Need another b52....sometin that can carry 10 moabs...or so...
Re: a lecture given at the elitist Davos conference, civilization has evolved from whoever had the land rules, to whoever has the machines rules (tanks, bombers, etc.), to whoever has the algorithms rules. We have entered the “algorithms not organisms” age, he said. Digital dictatorship, in other words. Artificial Intelligence robotics, 5G interconnectivity, etc.
Just saying.
#5 Here she is.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/32/01/18/3201189e6f54d3ef34eb19b4dce6621f—slice-of-pizza-photos-of-models.jpg
“DETERRENCE!”
Our ICBM/SMBM missile are the deterrence. A pesky bomber that can hit a few targets and can also be shot out of the sky is of little deterrence.
During the first gulf war we used over 2,200 aircraft and bombed thousands upon thousands of targets. You think adding maybe 100 new aircraft at the cost the B-21 makes any real difference to deterrence??
The USAF promises 100 B-21 aircraft. Based on their performance of delivery we might get 20 of those things at 5 times the estimated cost.
B-2: 132 promised, 21 delivered, 10 can fly at any time, over $2 billion per aircraft.
F-22: 648 at $87 Billion, 187 delivered at $67 billion.
F-35: $400+ billion to date and over $1 trillion for operations estimated.
At these numbers, your mind cannot even comprehend that cost. The ability to relate it to other numbers apparently is lost to you, that any cost now is justified. Well, it’s not.
The reason that we only get challenges from “tribesman with rusty rifles” is because the world saw what happened to Saddam’s army stood out in the open. The way to negate US conventional strength is to fight in urban areas using irregular tactics. It’s not decisive, but it’s not suicide either. If the US conventional strength is left to languish you might just get invited to a stand-up fight.
Does it have pilots? If it does it’s out dated.
Air Force pilot's union loathes the drones.
Boomer submarines trump all other weapons.
They control the seas unseen.
Yeah - because none of our enemies are ramping anything up.....strength through weakness is an interesting concept - I think I can envision Nancy Pelosi telling us that we really need to not make any updated nukes until we have used the ones we already have....
As a former Missileman, I agree the deterrence is primarily in the ICBM/SLBMs, but the Air Force is run by FlyBoys.
As far as costs being "lost to me", I am not a simpleton in Finance and government contracting as YOU appear to be. Also, it only takes one NUKE - russian/chicom/NORK/Iranian - to make all the costs worthwhile.
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.
