21–30 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem currently (Iraq and Syria) is the Air Force is being only able to run limited sorties against a large number of small targets like pickup trucks with 20mm cannons on the back.
The way to hit an unsophisticated target like that is come at them out of the sun. They won't see or hear you coming.
So what. It's not as if the US government is fighting anyone with any real air capability. You could use Vietnam aircraft and still win against the threat.
Because nations tend to avoid starting wars they'll obviously lose. If the US military falls behind technologically, other nations might start thinking defeat isn't so obvious any more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but the better planes are needed for deterrent.
If the money was used instead in financial vehicles for the adversarial countries in question, the created economic codependence would very likely be more effective than this plane
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nations tend to avoid starting wars they'll obviously lose. If the US military falls behind technologically, other nations might start thinking defeat isn't so obvious any more.
South America isn't invading you any time soon and every other mob has a whopping great pile of water to cross and not much in the way of an active carrier fleet to support it, or they're already your allies. The only one that falls into your threat category is Russia. Is Russia really about to invade the US at the first sign of air supremacy weakness? You still have enough nukes to cause literal worldwide armageddon…
Why even leave a shadow of a doubt that the enemy could win in a dogfight?
I think that's the rationale presented here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Danish government have the same issue. The plan is to buy 27 F-35s, but that's not really enough for anything. They are suppose to replace 60 F-16s. Even if the F-35 is as good as it's claimed, and the Russians are coming, I think you'd be better of with twice the number of some less advanced planes.
Missiles and drones are a lot cheaper than piloted planes, and easier to replace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Danish government have the same issue. The plan is to buy 27 F-35s, but that's not really enough for anything. They are suppose to replace 60 F-16s. Even if the F-35 is as good as it's claimed, and the Russians are coming, I think you'd be better of with twice the number of some less advanced planes.
At this point it's fair to say that anyone waiting on F-35 would have been better served by just ordering more Warthogs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nations tend to avoid starting wars they'll obviously lose. If the US military falls behind technologically, other nations might start thinking defeat isn't so obvious any more.
South America isn't invading you any time soon and every other mob has a whopping great pile of water to cross and not much in the way of an active carrier fleet to support it, or they're already your allies. The only one that falls into your threat category is Russia. Is Russia really about to invade the US at the first sign of air supremacy weakness? You still have enough nukes to cause literal worldwide armageddon…
While that wouldn't hurt the average American in the short run, the long-term consequences of it in geopolitical terms would be extreme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nations tend to avoid starting wars they'll obviously lose. If the US military falls behind technologically, other nations might start thinking defeat isn't so obvious any more.
South America isn't invading you any time soon and every other mob has a whopping great pile of water to cross and not much in the way of an active carrier fleet to support it, or they're already your allies. The only one that falls into your threat category is Russia. Is Russia really about to invade the US at the first sign of air supremacy weakness? You still have enough nukes to cause literal worldwide armageddon…
The US might be tired of playing 'world cop', but it's a role it chose itself, and it's been getting plenty of tasty kickbacks for doing so. I don't have a problem with that - nations have a right to think of themselves first in any deal - but it's still funny that so many people ignore that US military projection heavily protects it's economic muscle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nations tend to avoid starting wars they'll obviously lose. If the US military falls behind technologically, other nations might start thinking defeat isn't so obvious any more.
South America isn't invading you any time soon and every other mob has a whopping great pile of water to cross and not much in the way of an active carrier fleet to support it, or they're already your allies. The only one that falls into your threat category is Russia. Is Russia really about to invade the US at the first sign of air supremacy weakness? You still have enough nukes to cause literal worldwide armageddon…