backtop


Print 183 comment(s) - last by winterspan.. on Dec 11 at 3:41 AM


An F-15 flies alongside two F-22s  (Source: Aviation Explorer)
Structural failures in the F-15 leads officials to scramble for more F-22s

The last time DailyTech discussed the USAF's F-22 Raptor in detail, the fighter was in the news due to an International Date Line (IDL) bug. When a group of Raptors flying from Hawaii to Japan crossed the IDL, multiple computer systems crashed on the planes forcing them to rely on their accompanying tankers to guide them to safety.

Today, the Raptors are in the news again -- but this time it's not for something negative towards the plane itself. The Defense Department is reportedly making plans to extend the production of the F-22.

The original plan was to produce 183 F-22s at a cost of $132 million USD each. The last F-22 was to be delivered by the end of 2011.

The move to continue production of the F-22 beyond 2011 comes amid recent safety concerns over the 30+ year old F-15. A Missouri Air National Guard F-15C crashed on November 2 during a routine training mission. Early investigations suggested a structural failure as the direct cause of the crash.

As a result, USAF grounded the entire fleet of F-15s. "The whole fleet was already flying on flight restrictions due to metal fatigue," said Lexington Institute military analyst Loren Thompson in early November. "In this case, the planes that are grounded are supposed to be America's top-of-the line air superiority plane. These are the sinews of our global air dominance."

The planes were then put back into service on November 19 only to be recently grounded again. All 442 of the USAFs F-15A, B, C and D aircraft were grounded -- only the newest F-15E Strike Eagles remain cleared for regularly scheduled flights.

Thompson noted that money is being squirreled away into the fiscal 2009 budget to make room for additional F-22 aircraft after the last of the originally planned 183 planes is built in 2011. The Air Force has requested as many as 381 of the aircraft, but it's unlikely that the money being set aside will allow for anywhere near that number of aircraft.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/3/2007 10:02:33 AM , Rating: 3
This is a good thing. Planes do not have 50+ year life spans. Some of the older bombers (B-52) do, but they have been through numerous major overhauls.

By increasing our armament of F-22's we can further solidify our hold on air dominance into the 21st century.




RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 10:10:13 AM , Rating: 4
I agree. Air warfare is really where the US has its stronghold.


RE: Good
By cochy on 12/3/2007 10:18:21 AM , Rating: 5
"Let's give em' an air show!"


RE: Good
By iFX on 12/3/2007 10:20:25 AM , Rating: 1
I agree there is nothing that can touch us in the air, but we are the most devastating open field army on the planet also. Urban fighting has proved to be a challenge but in the open country no country can oppose us.


RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 10:24:09 AM , Rating: 1
I think we are still the most advanced urban fighting force...but its still hard to fight in urban areas where the resistance is more familiar with the surroundings than you are.

But i think our future technology in weapons, night vision, heat signals, etc will be prove to be even more successful.


RE: Good
By smitty3268 on 12/3/2007 2:53:53 PM , Rating: 4
Urban areas lend themselves well to guerrilla warfare, which levels out the differences between superior armies and their enemies, especially when the occupying army is hesitant to simply kill any innocent civilians. Still, we're certainly one of the best - I might be inclined to say Israel is better, simply because they've had so much experience in this area.

Where the US really wasn't very good was in peacekeeping, and acting like police/diplomats rather than a military organization. Which isn't really a surprise given that this was really frowned upon by our military for decades. Patreus has really worked on changing this recently.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Even in Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) or Urban warfare, technology plays a key role. It can give you the upper hand if employed properly but if you become too dependent, when your shit fails, it'll be a long day ;-)
Either way training is the key. It's where the boots hit the ground.

Israelis definitely know Urban warfare. Unfortunately they've learned through trial by fire. The Brits have had there share with Ireland.

Now as for who's better, well, Ask a US Marine, a Royal Marine or their Israeli counterpart who's better!

The US has done a lot of peace keeping efforts. Usually there are very strict rules on the amount of time we are there and we do prefer that the UN or a multi-national peacekeeping force replaces us. This is because, like you said we aren't designed to be a peacekeeping force and secondly we don't want to be viewed as an occupying force.


RE: Good
By maven81 on 12/3/2007 11:05:58 AM , Rating: 3
I think history has shown time and time again, that a technologically superior army can be fought to a standstill by one that is less advanced but has a greater numbers, and even more so if it has home field advantage.
Such thinking is therefore dangerous and misguided, since this perceived invincibility can totally blind someone to the harsh realities of war.
Frankly I think future warfare will mainly consist of very small, localized conflicts, where this open field advantage is even less relevant.


RE: Good
By iFX on 12/3/2007 11:15:51 AM , Rating: 1
This is why I said urban fighting has been a challenge.


RE: Good
By Regs on 12/3/2007 1:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Urban fighting will remain a challenge since it causes a death rate amongst our troops which is not acceptable to our public or politicians.

The technology to fight urban war from a distance with minimal collateral damage is out there but is very costly.

I don't see our Marines being equipped very well with modern armor and vests. So I can't imagine their weaponry being any different. Maybe special forces, but special forces do more recon, rescue, and counter-intellgence than combat.


RE: Good
By timmiser on 12/3/2007 3:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
The strives we have made on the technology behind urban fighting has been huge. Due to the soldier armour technology, we have seen a huge number of dismemberments in the US forces but very little torso injuries by comparision. This is just another step on what will be a future focus on leg and arm armour.

There is also a trend being developed in robotic recon. In a urban situation, knowing where the enemy is hiding is the key and what better way to find them by hooking up cameras to an R/C helicopter and fly around the suspected building looking on the roof and in the windows and into the rooms. Kind of an evolution of the unmaned predater drone aircaft.


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 11:40:32 AM , Rating: 3
Thats because the US has to play by the rules. If we were allowed to throw the rule book away in a war situation then it would be a very different story.

Our enemies fire from Churches, Schools, and hospitals and we take a more civilized manner in fighting back.

We fight more of a politically correct war then our adversaries. If we didnt have to fight this way then no one would stand a chance.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 12:06:24 PM , Rating: 1
Hit the nail on the head. We have to follow rules. They don't. Iraq has been a disaster because politicians have tried to run the war.


RE: Good
By SeeManRun on 12/3/2007 1:07:52 PM , Rating: 3
Well, when your country is getting invaded, you'll probably go to greater lengths than an invading army. The invading army can just go home if they lose, but if you lose, you may very well die, or be a prisoner. Makes one fight harder than the hired army of an invader.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/3/2007 2:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
No. They're just plain dogs, doing things like hideing caches of weapons and ammo in families basements, then making a fuss when an airstrike takes the place out, killing the family, as seen in the Lebanon conflict last summer.

Reconciliation is the ultimate outcome; look at Northern Ireland, isn't the present leader a former IRA guerilla? This sort of after-the-fact inclusiveness has a strong enough precedent, not to mention our success in places like Anbar province is based on working with people who previously were fighting against us -- or at the very least, they expressed hostile neutrality.

They're dogs. Lets not be PC. They are dogs.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/4/2007 12:06:03 AM , Rating: 1
-1 rating, but am I wrong? There's no justification for their tactics; they terrorize their own people to push them to radicalize, and they don't have to fight like animals due to the threat of certain death if they fail because an argument could be made that reconciliation without mass executions is in fact probably the best way to end civil strife.

Did the French or Germans take it to this level in WW1? No. Did the allies in WW2? Not systematically; we did drop pamphlets in the targetted towns of nuclear strikes warning them to leave soon, and there was an "ends justify the means" rationale which these people don't have. Did Americans take it to this level when fighting the Civil War? Except for nuts in Kansas, no.

We didn't treat the Tories very nicely in our own Revolution, but nothing on the scale these people have got in killing civilians, and we did have regular armies in the field despite British superiority and their hired German mercenaries.

They don't have an excuse, and wont apologize for pointing it out. Down-mod this too. :P


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/3/2007 1:37:59 PM , Rating: 1
The US ignores rules it wants to. For instance the invasion was a war crime as defined by the US, the Nazi were executed for doing the same thing the US/UK did. Its illegal to bomb or use Chemical weapons in cites with civilians present. Doesn't stop the US doing it.

I suppose the most effective way would have been to nuke the cities - however once you dis-regard the rules don't expect other countries to play nice. If China, Russia, Pakistan decide to start handing out nuclear weapons US military advantage will count for nought.

Remember, you enemy will not fight you where you are strongest, that would be stupid. The US commands the Air and open countryside, great... you can have it. Thats why Iraqi Information Ministers parting words were that 'they had the American just where they wanted them - in Baghdad'. Four years later the war is still being fought.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 1:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats why Iraqi Information Ministers parting words were that 'they had the American just where they wanted them - in Baghdad'. Four years later the war is still being fought.

His words were not ominious foreshadow, they were delusional ramblings of a complete idiot and/or liar. The Iraqi military forces that we faced when we invaded Iraq have long since melted away, and the enemy we face today is a much different beast. The former Iraqi government neither planned on nor counted on this as part of their plan.


RE: Good
By BMFPitt on 12/3/2007 11:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
His words were not ominious foreshadow, they were delusional ramblings of a complete idiot and/or liar.
Or comic genius.


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/4/2007 6:18:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yet he accurately predicted exactly what was going to happen. They trained hundred's of thousands in guerilla warfare and left the country scattered with 500,000 tons of weapons. Large parts of the insurgency are ex-Iraqi Military.

It wasn't a fluke, it was planned.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/4/2007 8:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It wasn't a fluke, it was planned.

LOL, I wondered why the information minister was spewing out all that junk, like who would fall for it? I guess I know now - you. :o)

Seriously, what you're saying is wrong. The current tactics you see are the result of training by Iran and al Queda after the war started. You can tell this because of the tactics that have changed since we first invaded. For example, there were few if any roadside bombs/IEDs when we first invaded - these only came later.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 5:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US ignores rules it wants to. For instance the invasion was a war crime as defined by the US, the Nazi were executed for doing the same thing the US/UK did.


No it wasn't. I'm pretty sure the Nazis were executed for committing genocide against the Jews.

quote:
Its illegal to bomb or use Chemical weapons in cites with civilians present.


It's not illegal to bomb in cities, not all chemical weapons are illegal but their application is. Tear Gas anybody? The US has lawyers(yeah thats right)whose sole purpose is to make sure we fight within the rules.

These rules are called the Law of Armed Conflict. This lays down the basic rules governing warfare. Then you have the Rules of Engagement which change depending on the situation. There is no blanket all in one rule.


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/4/2007 6:30:12 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure?

They were charged with multiple crimes, one of which was starting an 'aggressive war' based on a legal argument.

Claiming that war can be justified by laws is an war crime in itself. The only reason to fight war is in self defense - anything else is a crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

It IS illegal to bomb when civilians are present, there is no excuse that the enemy endangered the civilians in the first place, its still illegal to kill them. Say sorry and claiming they 'we try to avoid collateral damage' cuts no ice - dropping 500lb bombs on a city will kill civilians every time. It deliberate murder.

Tear gas is tear gas, the chemical weapon we are talking about is Phosphorus, use by US forces (admitted and documented) in Iraqi cities.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/4/2007 11:23:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well you post made it sound like that was the primary reason they were executed. It was one of many. If you're going to compare things be more specific otherwise people will read and interpret it differently. You also make it sound like the US attacked unprovoked. You ignore the fact that Saddam ignored countless UN mandates and resolutions that stated action would be taken if they didnt cut that shit out. As far as the whole self defense thing goes. Hitting first is always an option. For example if you know someone is about to bitch slap you across the face and kick you in the balls are you going to wait for them to do it or are you goin to kungfu punch them in the face first to prevent them push slamming your testicles into your throat? Anyways we could debate the justification of this war until we turn blue and neither of us would yield.

Again bombing in a city is not illegal but the application of such tactics is restricted. Collateral damage is always a determining factor when deciding wether or not to use bombs. Their are different bombs for different applications. Actually dropping a 500 pound bomb will not always kill civies.

The white phosphorous is used and considered an incendiary weapon not a chemical weapon. The caveat to that though it is considered a chemical weapon if used on civilians. It was used in Fallujah, not against civilians, but was used against enemy combatants to flush them out of covered positions, and to illuminate targets.

You are either skewing the facts to support your opinion or you have simply been misinformed. Go read the Law of Armed Conflict and if you have any more questions about weapons and their application I'll be happy to answer them.


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Manch on 12/4/2007 5:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They did


That's a convincing argument. OK my turn:

Did not!!

and for your other replies:

No it's not! No it's not!

See where we're going with this?

By your logic all wars are illegal and only when some one has attacked you are you then justified in retaliating. That's a dangerous stance to take. By that logic if I wait for someone to hit me, well that hit could be the first, the only, and the last.

Please, by all means show me this law that says attacking first is always a war crime and I guarantee I'll find the exception to it.

Of course if you send me the Laws of War: eatme01 edition maybe I may find what you allude to.

One more thing, in your opinion was the first Gulf war also a war crime?


RE: Good
By SleepyGreg on 12/3/2007 12:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because invading another country under false pretenses is so P.C.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 12:19:48 PM , Rating: 1
That's obviously a pretty cheap shot since most everyone agrees that the decision to invade Iraq turned out to be a bad one.


RE: Good
By Crazyeyeskillah on 12/3/2007 12:27:38 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Good
By SleepyGreg on 12/3/2007 12:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well it's hypocritical of Mitch101 to suggest that "We fight more of a politically correct war then our adversaries" when the very foundations of the war are politically incorrect


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 12:38:04 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree - the two are separate. As I already said, I think the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. Just because that mistake was made doesn't imply that we should be immoral or unethical in how we execute the war after we are there.


RE: Good
By Felofasofa on 12/3/2007 4:41:52 PM , Rating: 1
A mistake? Some of the most amoral foreign policy ever contrived from an appallingly mendacious administration and you call it a mistake? Say that to the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed or maimed because of your mistake. Your lack of humanity is dreadful, what do you do, push stats for the pentagon?


RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Strunf on 12/3/2007 5:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
What you guys are forced to be in the army?... my god and I thought the US had abolished slavery "long" time ago.


RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 6:31:48 PM , Rating: 1
What? Perhaps im dyslexic, because im sure what you were saying.

If you are asking if we are forced to be in the military - then the answer is no. Its a complete volunteer army. But once you are in the military, you take direct orders. If you are enlisted military, and told you are going to war, then you go to war and do what you are told to do when you get there. Is that really a hard concept?

Not sure what that has to do with slavery, or how that differs from any other military in any other country.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 8:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we take orders directly and indirectly and we also give them. Orders are not the exclusive right of Officers.

Enlisted and Officer both deploy to various locations for various reasons. Combat is not the exclusive domain of enlisted men and women. Officers though far less numerous go to battle as well.

In the Army & Marines the enlisted do the bulk of the fighting but their officers are there beside them in battle.

In the Air Force & Navy the Officers(pilots) do the bulk of the combat while enlisted provide the support generating Sorties, running the ships(not commanding).

Of course their are exceptions to the rules.


RE: Good
By Felofasofa on 12/4/2007 1:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps im dyslexic,

There's no perhaps in it, you are most definitely dyslexic, illiterate, and totally unencumbered with the ability to comprehend meaning from written text. Give up now and spare us all.


RE: Good
By Strunf on 12/4/2007 3:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
hmm Everyone in the army knew it before enlisting what they could do once inside, is like joining a gang of drug dealers and after saying “no guilty” of whatever they did just cause you were forced to… hell at least the army won’t kill you if you don’t obey.

To me everyone is responsible for their actions, unless forced to do them, and by forced I mean when your life is at the stake.

But yeah the US army is no different than any other army… but the chances of actually getting into a war are higher in the US than in most other countries.


RE: Good
By just4U on 12/4/2007 3:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Say that to the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed or maimed because of your mistake.


I really only have one question to ask after this comment. How many Iraqi civilians were killed while Saddam was in power?

Btw, I am not American... and the only mistake I think was made is Afganistan should have been taken care of before even thinking of moving on to Iraq, which ofcourse was always a possibility all things being considered.


RE: Good
By Felofasofa on 12/4/2007 3:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
As appalling as Saddams regime was, the general consenus is that things are much worse since the war and invasion. America's standing in the world has also taken a frightful beating. There aren't to many positives to take from this regardless of your perspective.


RE: Good
By Clauzii on 12/4/2007 6:46:29 PM , Rating: 3
Regarding the new airplanes - They should have done it 6 years ago instead of now..

But hey, if 9/11 had been avoided, no reason for global fear and terror...

My rant of the day:
------------------------
I see only one reason for the US to be fighting on the other side of the globe: SOMEONE want's more power! Don't give me bulls... about "Liberation" and all that. It's ALL about POWER and money to buy even more power.

FINDING Osama was okay with me IF he really did 9/11. I simply don't accept the US saying "We can't find him!" or "I'm really not that concerned about finding Osama" - GWB (2003, I think..)

"Let's say Saddam was in it on 9/11 and that he has WMDs!! (WE can have WMDs - not the others! Because >WE are the MASTERs and You are the puppets!< (Rich a-holes points at all the 'suckers' that makes the rich a-holes even richer and more powerfull..) :-/. Then we can also protect the pipeline thru Afghanistan to Kasakstan! Brilliant idea."

"Oh? - NO WMDs! Ok, let's spend billions and "liberate" the Iraqis - so we don't go emptyhanded home..

This whole Iraqi war is one big agenda. One that is NOT connected at all to 9/11.

--

There are two kinds of people in the world:

The ones who kill,
and the ones who don't.


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/3/2007 1:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
Usually we agree on stuff, but on this, I do not feel the same.

Going into Iraq was not a mistake. I cannot imagine that taking out a ruthless dictator such as Mr. Hussein was such a "bad thing". Have you seen the recent reporting on the country itself? Things are starting to turn around. When you have had a brutal dictator, it takes time to clean up afterwards. (Japan anyone? How about Germany?)

Entering Iraq and freeing those people was reason enough to go in, but public support was not there for that mission, so for years we sat on our hands. Once reports of WMD started coming in from every single intelligence agency on the planet, the seriousness started to become apparent.

Now I personally find it impossible to believe every intelligence agency could have gotten it wrong, and personally I feel there is probably more to the story than what we know so far. That is a huge desert, with many allies to Saddam nearby. If you have read the news recently about the Israeli strike in Syria, you would notice, Syria was putting together a bomb for Korea, using Korea's plutonium. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle...

Call me crazy, but if this could be occurring beneath the world's noses, do you not think they could also be holding stuff for the former Iraqi regime? Could the mere sophistication of the actual bomb product plant be technology shipped from Iraq? Just speculation, but makes sense to me.

I have not even touched on the War on Terror implications of changing the face of the Middle East. Strategically, the US is in a far more dominant position than we were 6 years ago. Not only do either we or our allies have prominent roles in the Middle East, but we conveniently surround such tyrannical regimes such as Iran and Syria. (Afghanistan, Iraq, & Israel)

This also has greatly aided in our ability to stabilize a rather turbulent area. These are real dangers, and real threats to not just our (the United States') safety, but also to the safety of the world.

I would hardly call removing Saddam from power to be a "mistake".

- Creathir


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/3/2007 1:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
The link for the Times article. (The DT engine misread the link, sorry about that)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle...

- Creathir


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 2:49:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would hardly call removing Saddam from power to be a "mistake".

I agree that removing Saddam is a good thing, however, it wasn't really a problem that required a solution by the United States. And especially not at the cost to us in terms of killed and injured soldiers, $1-2T, damage to our moral reputation and political capital throughout the world, and the increased hatred we caused to ourselves in the Middle East (which will probably haunt us for generations to come).

We were lied to about the reasons and the costs. The costs are too great for even the best case outcomes, which themselves seem very unlikely. Most of America agrees on this.

Unfortunately, by getting involved we own the mess now, and it's our responsibility to try to fix it now.

If I could meet an ordinary Iraqi citizen whose life has been detroyed by our actions, all I could say is "I'm sorry."

War is terrible and sometimes necessary, but not in the case of Iraq was it necessary.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 8:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
How about an Iraqi who's life has been made better because of it? What would you say to him?

If you go to Northern Iraq, most places it's safe enough to move around without body armor or Kevlar. The Kurds are no longer being repressed because of this war. The place looks very normal. They police themselves and they "take care" of the ones that come in to make trouble. Even in the Anbar "triangle of Death" things have gotten better not as good as up north but the progress is their.

I agree with your point about we own it we need to clean it up. Most people I feel fail to realize is it was our mess to clean up a long time ago. The fact that we provided Saddam weapons to deal with Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a piss poor foreign policy. After the first Gulf war we halted outside of Baghdad because the U.N. said so. We the US then encouraged the Shiite to revolt. The UN would not authorize us to back them up even though they had advocated regime change, we obeyed their ruling and the Shiite were crushed, murdered, and slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. We broke our promise to them. Their blood is on our hands.

So fast forward to the beginning of this war. After we invaded we expected them to welcome us with open arms. Some did but a lot did not and don't trust us. This is because they were afraid we would abandon them like we did before. It's taken us a long time to regain that trust. We paid for it in money, blood, friends, family.

Aside from all of that though, the politicians need to let us fight this and finish it. The good will of the Iraqis is starting to turn for the better but that won't last forever. The Brits found that out the hard way. Sadly I feel that was our fault too. I understand why you feel that this could have been avoided. I feel we lost that chance a long time ago and it was just a matter of time.

It's a very complex and a very gray issue and it's impossible not to color it with emotion.


RE: Good
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/4/2007 3:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you. So many people don't understand the history between Iraq and previous American presidencies. Saddam, and Iraq is a problem that we created (Previous presidents) and was one we left to fester time and time again. Frankly, if we had the balls to clean the mess up the first time, it would never would have come to an occupation to get the job done. The reality is that we had several opportunities to fix the situation and everyone passed or got brick walled by foreign policy(UN). It's our mess and while I don't always agree with Bush, I have to respect the fact that someone, (for better or worse) finally had the guts to do something about it. Historians will debate this for years to come.

My opinion on the matter is to let our military do what it was trained to do. This is not a political problem, this is a military problem. Senators sitting around saying "bring the troops home" are not what I would call, reliable.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/4/2007 5:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
Damn skippy! Keep the politicians out so I can do my fricken job!!


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 4:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nice post Creathir.

I will go a step farther as I am a former NY/NJ resident. The World Trade centers were attacked not once but twice. 9-11 was the second attack on the trade centers and the reason there was a second attack was because after the first attack we didn't do anything about it and history repeated itself.

I will let you in on a very little known fact because friends of mine were working at Allied Signal where the first bombing was planned from. My IBM friends were interviewed by the FBI and one of them heard an FBI official state that had the original bomb gone off where they wanted it placed it would have toppled the one tower into the other. After hearing this if you examine the explosion damage the first bomb made it could have easily done enough damage to the tower to topple in into the second tower. We were very lucky on the first bombing.

As someone who has lost 2 friends to 9-11 I am disappointed we didn't go into IRAQ the first time around and because we didn't they got a second chance and 9-11 is the result. We played the political role in an attack and it got people here killed. Imagine what else they would have done had we not done anything a second time? We need to go into Pakistan because there should be no safe haven for terrorist groups.

Saddam also committed many crimes against humanity but we don't talk about how he poisoned his own people/villages in the testing of weapons. He wasn't hung because of anything on our part. He was hung because of the crimes he committed upon his own people.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 4:53:11 PM , Rating: 3
The fault in your reasoning is there is absolutely no connection between Iraq/Hussain and 9/11 - none at all. Being as well-informed as you appear to be, how could you overlook that fact?


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 5:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
That would mean your OK with countries that allow terrorists to run free, train terrorists, and plan attacks on other countries and cannot be held accountable for their actions?


RE: Good
By Locutus465 on 12/3/2007 5:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
I would guess he is more interested in actually applying military force in the territories where terrorists actually are being given safe haven rather than baselessly attacking a country because you don't like the current regime.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 5:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would guess he is more interested in actually applying military force in the territories where terrorists actually are being given safe haven rather than baselessly attacking a country because you don't like the current regime.

Exactly. Like Afghanistan, which was a good response and was effective. The Taliban were clearly harboring terrorist training camps, and they no longer exist there. I believe that the US should engage in those types of military strategies. The problem is that Afghanistan emboldened the Bush Administration and hence Iraq, I believe.


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 5:42:01 PM , Rating: 1
Thankyou Yes I am all for going into countries that safe harbor terrorist groups. There should be no safe havens for them.

Side note:

It is poor for anyone to say Saddam did not have a hand in those terrorist groups. By allowing them safe havens, training etc in his country he is supporting those groups actions even if he is not working directly with them or related to them.

Pakistan is doing the same and we need to show that there are no safe zones for terrorist organizations.

There were many reasons Saddam needed to be taken out of power. Our reasons may not have been well established with the WMD issues but there were plenty of other crimes Saddam did against his own poeple to warrant the removal.


RE: Good
By rcc on 12/3/2007 7:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Bottom line is that Hussein could have avoided the invasion simply by allowing the UN inspectors to do their jobs. Had he not been stonewalling, it never would have been an issue.

If there was nothing to be found it makes his mistake all the greater. The moron played at brinksmanship with tinfoil tanks and toys..... ok, with good hardware poorly handled. You'd think he'd have know better by then.

But... the UN decreed that he should let in the inspectors, he refused, and got his butt kicked; with tragic consequences for his citizens. Not that they aren't better off without him, but it is a tough transition.


RE: Good
By Locutus465 on 12/3/2007 9:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bottom line is that Hussein could have avoided the invasion simply by allowing the UN inspectors to do their jobs. Had he not been stonewalling, it never would have been an issue.


Funny you should bring that up, because he actually did. UN inspectors went in, from what I remember there were no major "we're not getting access to..." issues, what the inspectors wanted to see they saw. They reported back to the UN (and US) that they didn't find anything, and Bush responded by saying "He's hiding them, he sent them to iran, we're invading because saddam isn't cooperating".... I hate to say it, the US was a blind agressor in this case and it angers me.


RE: Good
By rcc on 12/4/2007 11:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, as I recall, the whole year prior to the invasion was a series of "no, you can't go there, get out", etc. stalls, harassments, and general non-cooperation.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 7:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is poor for anyone to say Saddam did not have a hand in those terrorist groups. By allowing them safe havens, training etc in his country he is supporting those groups actions even if he is not working directly with them or related to them.

That's factually incorrect. There is no public evidence that Hussain harbored terrorists in Iraq. See my other posts.
quote:
Pakistan is doing the same and we need to show that there are no safe zones for terrorist organizations.

I agree with you there. I personally think we should have a number of smart-bombs accidently "go off course" into Pakistan and take out some of these Taliban and al Queda groups that are clearly known to exist there. Musharrif doesn't want to be viewed as a "lap dog" to the US, however on the other hand, he's not living up to his responsibility of controlling the tribal areas of Pakistan to keep bad guys out.
quote:
There were many reasons Saddam needed to be taken out of power. Our reasons may not have been well established with the WMD issues but there were plenty of other crimes Saddam did against his own poeple to warrant the removal.

I agree, but in my view, none of that justifies our action in invading Iraq. Heck, we've let Castro exist just off the coast of Florida all these years. I'm sure the military could solve that problem in a matter of hours, but it's just not a justifyable action either.


RE: Good
By BMFPitt on 12/3/2007 11:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree with you there. I personally think we should have a number of smart-bombs accidently "go off course" into Pakistan and take out some of these Taliban and al Queda groups that are clearly known to exist there.
Wouldn't it be great if we could invade Pakistan and secure their nukes in the event of a coup by hardline Islamic forces? But our army is otherwise occupied by something.


RE: Good
By CascadingDarkness on 12/3/2007 6:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
Nice reply. Except that all intelligent agencies agree we have created the newest, best terrorist training ground in the world. Activities in Iraq are far greater that they ever were before the invasion (as they were almost non-existent before). Huge net loss for number of terrorists with know-how to kill us and our allies. Not only that but there are now Americans close at hand to practice on and in harms way.

Sorta put a hole in that boat. Want to keep bailing?

quote:
That would mean your OK with countries that allow terrorists to run free, train terrorists, and plan attacks on other countries and cannot be held accountable for their actions?


By your words the ones that should be held accountable are most likely those within our own government for making things hugely worse by putting us over there. I had the option I would definately hold them accountable, and not just by re-electing. I'm thinking something serious.


RE: Good
By anandtechuser07 on 12/3/2007 4:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Explain to me what the hell did Iraq have to do with the WTC attacks, either the first attempted one, or 9-11? Are you an idiot? Your post reeks of your stupidity.

You say you lost two of your friends at 9-11; you should have been with them.


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 5:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
Saddam provided Safe harboring of terrorist groups and allowed groups like Al-Queda to flourish in his country.

If anyone should have been there it should have been you.


RE: Good
By anandtechuser07 on 12/3/2007 5:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
Your stupidity knows no bounds. The 9-11 hijackers were predominantly Saudi. There was no Al Quaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion.

Look, I think it's time you get off the computer and go finish high school. Further, 3000 people died at 9-11. Why don't you go join them?


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 5:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
You answered your own posting need you try and say more about stupidity or are you bi-polar and arguing with yourself?


RE: Good
By Locutus465 on 12/3/2007 5:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
Except Al Quida was also a threat to Saddam's regime as well... Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that pretty much all those people out in the middle east are all the same? For your information Saddam's regime was a secular one something which Osama would have seen as a blight against gods will in the middle east... Iraq being a police state kept it secure, Saddam was not about to allow al quida to get the foothold in Iraq under his rule that the USA has allowed.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 5:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saddam provided Safe harboring of terrorist groups and allowed groups like Al-Queda to flourish in his country.

Also incorrect. Saddam was a paranoid dictator and he didn't tolerate groups like al Queda in Iraq at all. They only were able to take root there in the security void left after we invaded and removed the Hussain regime.


RE: Good
By just4U on 12/4/2007 3:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also incorrect. Saddam was a paranoid dictator and he didn't tolerate groups like al Queda in Iraq at all. They only were able to take root there in the security void left after we invaded and removed the Hussain regime.


Tom I believe your wrong there. While Saddam didn't have any connection to al Queda and would not tolerate them in Iraq I am pretty positive he allowed other terrorist cells in his country .. well atleast according to CNN 5+ years back.


RE: Good
By winterspan on 12/11/2007 3:41:33 AM , Rating: 1
You are a fucking idiot. Saddam had NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER TO ANY ISLAMIST TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. Read the fucking Intelligence Estimates. People like are you are the ignorant fucking sheep that allow other idiots like bush to control this country. WAKE UP! Go back to highschool!


RE: Good
By anandtechuser07 on 12/3/2007 5:01:43 PM , Rating: 3
If it was such a good idea, why didn't you volunteer to go fight? Oh that's right, you're a goddamn coward. There was no reason to attack Iraq, the WMD accusations were complete lies, and you and your lying kind are traitors to this country. Now go back to your SUV with your yellow-ribbon sticker and guzzle more gas.


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/3/2007 11:48:42 PM , Rating: 3
The only coward sir, is yourself.

The treasonous ones are the ones such are yourself, who stick their head in the sand when a problem arises. Conflict is part of life, deal with it. Thank God folks like you were not as prevalent during WWII as they are today. We would all be speaking German.

I will ride in my truck (not an SUV) and guzzle gas as I go about my daily life. I suppose you walk/ride a bike to your work?

You're lucky you even HAVE a computer to flame people with. Use some sense buddy. Open your eyes. Evil exists in this world, and SOMEONE has to take care of it. If the US won't, who will? Russia? China? How about we just let it fester. The last time we tried that approach the Jewish people were almost wiped off the face of the earth, and almost all of Europe was taken over by a tyrannical fascist.

I suppose the head in the sand approach is the way to go...

I find it SO ironic that you try to accuse me of being a traitor, for having a certain belief, while in reality, you are the one actively working against this country and encouraging defeat of our brave soldiers.

You know, treason is punishable by death according to our constitution. I have a sneaky suspicion you are opposed to the death penalty, except for those whom have a different viewpoint than your own.

- A quite offended Creathir


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/4/2007 12:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thank God folks like you were not as prevalent during WWII as they are today.


To a degree, they were. We were lucky on two counts:

1) Roosevelt followed Lincoln's model of total disregard of the Constitution on the principle of executive prerogative and that America faced an impending epic crisis even though the American people didn't realize it. While running for election on the platform of peace, even making the promise that no American boys would die on foreign soil, he simultaneously violated all sorts of international law sending equipment to England, and rapidly expanded the military.

2) Pearl Harbor, and Hitler's idiocy. Roosevelt was concerned England would fall before pretext for entering the war on grounds acceptable to the people of the nation was found. The Japanese gave us pretext, and then Hitler, for whatever reason, decided to declare war as well. Roosevelt's problems conveniently being solved, we got on to the business of kicking ass.

I agree with the rest of your post though. :)

I'll go further and point out Bush's approval ratings, and the opinion of society of him, isn't much different then those of Truman upon leaving office. Truman is now viewed as one of our great presidents; he foresaw and took action against the coming storm. I don't think Bush will end up so highly regarded, unless Iraq turns out really well in 20-30 years, but he'll at least probably be viewed as the first President to take on this centuries international crisis.


RE: Good
By Locutus465 on 12/4/2007 12:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
I realize the OP may have hit a nerve with you, but please refrain from throwing around the "trator", "treasonous", "un-american", "unpatriotic" and what other basiless attack comes to mind. Something the current administration forgot in it's build up to war is one of the founding principals of this nation is everyone is free to express their opion whether right or wrong (which is why on occation we must endur clan rallies). I do also realize that being the internet this is an international forum by default, but I'm willing to bet that no matter where anyone posting is from, their basic laws are the same.

So please, if you diagree with their opion please try to state your opion with out using these words like this, and particularly with out threatening someone with the death pentalty for exersising their rights as either an american, or likely at the very least from a western nation with the same basic principals that we share. These kinds of posts make the USA (our country) look backwards.


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/4/2007 11:14:21 AM , Rating: 3
I would not usually, but I was just pointing out to him how throwing around terms like that is rediculous, especially from his standpoint.

- Creathir


RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/4/2007 7:17:06 AM , Rating: 2
Creathir -

These guys who are flaming this thread are part of that EXTREME "Looney Left", that it does us no good to even argue or counter with. He is about an Anti-American as they come - in fact, I compare him to those extremist groups who protest the military at military funerals, which I wouldn't be surprised if he does. Its quite sad, and frighteningly sick. Our country fights to let this people like this live here - yet in a high % of the global countries, they probably would be hung, executed, or beheaded for treason. These are the types of people I save my breath on, because they are so extreme, and they obviously have some sort of mental disorder. I would say their mental capacity is comprable to that of a suicide bomber. Sometimes, I wish our country did not turn as lenient and civilized as it is now....and still retained some of his hard-nosed tactics of the past in which these people would be dealt with accordingly. Id even go as far as to say that I would not be opposed to a deal with the democrats in which we would allow the illegal mexican immigrants to be citizens, in exchange for the permanent deportation of the left wing extremists!

But I'm with you...I will go on about my life, sucking up gasoline as much as I wish to, fighting their environmental propaganda that destroys our manufacturing & industrial economy, and defending the men and women of our military at all costs.

This guy is nothing more than a psychotic, extremist, & mentally derranged individual - who many would argue is guilty of treason himself. Im with you on being offended as well, and its unfortunate our society has to deal with people like that. But if they are so concerned with evolutionary approach, they should also know that survival of the fittest will eventually take place, thus eliminating the need for their types.

Said my peace.


RE: Good
By theapparition on 12/4/2007 10:09:23 AM , Rating: 2
Little late, but just wanted to re-enforce creathir's original point. Taken from the new report on Iran's potential nuclear activity.

quote:
The intelligence officials said they do not know all the reasons why Iran halted its weapons program, or what might trigger its resumption. They said they are confident that diplomatic and political pressure played a key role, but said the U.S. invasion of Iraq , Libya’s termination of its nuclear program and the implosion of the illegal nuclear smuggling network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan also might have influenced Tehran.


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/4/2007 11:18:47 AM , Rating: 3
Careful there...
facts tend to be ignored when dealing with the subject of Iraq.

I suppose Libya would have just gone ahead and quit the WMD development on their own had Iraq never occured.

The only fault the Bush Administration has with the War on Terror, is not further solidifying the fact that Iraq is a key component towards its success.

- Creathir


RE: Good
By Shining Arcanine on 12/3/2007 11:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that in the 25 years Saddam Hussein was in power, he killed 17 million people. Do you think that the US should have stood still while he killed another 17 million, part of which, would have been in the United States due to his terrorist funding program?

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Hit Ctrl+F and search for the word "check." You should find a scan of a check worth $25,000 that was made as a reward to the family of a suicide bomber, to encourage attacks by those who are disparate to support their families. In the middle east, $25,000 can give financial security for a lifetime, something that Hussein knew when he started that program, which the US military shut-down.


RE: Good
By Shining Arcanine on 12/3/2007 11:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Disparate" should be "desperate." Firefox's spell checker made a mistake when I used it and I did not catch it until after I made my post.


RE: Good
By Polynikes on 12/3/2007 12:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
That has not bearing on how the war is fought.

Maybe if someone YOU cared about was decapitated on live television you'd understand our point about war restrictions.


RE: Good
By mezman on 12/3/2007 3:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oh Jesus Christ. Cant anything topic on Daily Tech not devolve into pissing and moaning about the war?


RE: Good
By Regs on 12/3/2007 8:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
In war, truth is the first casualty. -Aeschylus


RE: Good
By mezman on 12/4/2007 2:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
And self-efficacy is the first causality on internet forums it would seem.


RE: Good
By dubldwn on 12/3/2007 12:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
It’s these “rules” that separate us from the people we are shooting to death. And are you suggesting that if we are fired upon from a hospital that we should bomb the hospital? Do you think that that would help us? What if we slowly and methodically rooted out the shooter and paraded him around on TV as the guy shooting from the hospital? It’s playing by these “rules” that allows us to command respect. It’s the reason that when are troops are present shops open and children play. Abandoning the “rules” will result in our being feared and despised, and I don’t want to be feared and despised. I want my country to be known for generosity and freedom, not terror.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 12:31:59 PM , Rating: 3
In short, you can't have it both ways. You can't solve the problem we have with groups like al Queda with "generosity and freedom." They want nothing from us, except they want us dead, and they are willing to go to great lengths to accomplish that. What choice to we have but to try to kill them first (which helps make us feared and despised)?


RE: Good
By dubldwn on 12/3/2007 12:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
The choice is to execute these wars in a responsible, sober, professional manner, which is what the vast majority of our troops seem to be doing. I think you missed the point of my post. Al-Queda should fear and despise us.
quote:
You can't solve the problem we have with groups like al Queda with "generosity and freedom."

Oh, I beg to differ. This war will be won with our ideas, and lowering ourselves to savagery won't help us, it'll help al-Queda. They will lose because we have a better message, not because would have better guns.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 1:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with on the other points, except that I think al Queda must be killed. We should not try to talk or negiotiate with them. We need to use diplomacy to avoid the creation and growth of groups like al Queda, but once they exist, killing them is the only option, in my opinion.


RE: Good
By SeeManRun on 12/3/2007 1:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
As soon as they are killed, their families will spring up and become a new group, learning from past mistakes. You can't beat them because they are not a formal organization. The only thing the US can do to stop terror, is stop giving militants a reason to use terror. They don't want the west to die because of arbitrary reasons. They want the west to get out of their countries and stop raping their resources. At least that is what I get from the news I watch.


RE: Good
By weskurtz0081 on 12/3/2007 1:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand they want us out of their countries, that makes sense. But, the only resource we are using is the oil. And, they are getting filthy rich from us "raping" the resource in which they choose to sell on the open market.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/3/2007 2:29:30 PM , Rating: 1
Then why is Al Qaeda actively placing native sleeper cells throughout Europe? When has Germany raped the Middle East in recent history? Why would they be in Spain, Spain is out of Iraq and hasn't been big on anything else, what's the beef there? And even England; surely they must realize England isn't half as invasive as the US is, and they're actively withdrawing except for the internationally-accepted Afghanistan mission.

The logic of "they want the west to get out" is what they want you to think. A former extremist wrote an excellent column in a British paper earlier this year and explained it well enough. They want a global caliphate, no less, they're patient enough to wait and fight over the long haul, and are perfectly happy to annihilate everyone who would oppose them.

Now, I used to think this could be effectively be countered with economic development, removing the plebian attraction to the organization. But hell, then doctors got in to the act, and blew that "peace through prosperity" theory out the window.


RE: Good
By JonnyDough on 12/3/2007 3:54:25 PM , Rating: 1
It's a good thing we don't all share your opinion. We CREATE enemies. Nobody is trying to take away our land. Canada and Mexico are on our borders, and if we put up fences they're not going to come charging at us with guns. If they do, that's what the military is for. We should never leave the homeland and try to push our beliefs on others. What if someone did that to us? Do you realize what America would do to them the moment we realized what they were doing? The truth is that we need to overthrow our own American government. Do you realized how much we are being TAXED?!!! If anyone learned about the Boston Tea party, I urge you to compare the taxation between then and now. Our governmental system was overthrown (the British/kicked out) centuries ago and they were less tyrannical than our current government is. You want to know why people think American's are stupid and weak? This is why. We're being used.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 4:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a good thing we don't all share your opinion. We CREATE enemies.

Are you saying we created al Queda? Seems like a real stretch to me.

Anyway, I think we agree more than we disagree. As I stated, we do share some responsibility for helping to create the situation which causes groups like al Queda to target us. But my point in the post you replied to is that they are clearly not a group you can reason with or hold talks with.


RE: Good
By rcc on 12/4/2007 1:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should take up your tax rate with the Left wing that wants all your money for their social programs?

The genius of our system is that if you don't like the government, you get to try and change it. If you don't like people that will raise your taxes, find a candidate that won't. Don't piss and moan about overthrowing it, it overthrows itself every 4-8 years. Of course, it's not simple, and you would actually have to work to make a difference, and find others that think as you do and get them off their butts as well.

It's the world's best and strongest system of government, and it's yours to screw up how ever you can.

And, btw, the last time the US went the isolationist route was before WWII, we don't need to make that mistake again, thank you very much.


RE: Good
By anandtechuser07 on 12/3/2007 5:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's people like you that perpetuate the war and make both the USA and Iraq a living hell. Seriously, jump in front of a truck with you and your family.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 5:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of getting angry at me and wishing me harm, what "solution" do you propose to solve the problem that al Queda wants most of us in the West dead? Come on, I want to hear your solution. I'm certainly not a war monger and I don't like that there appears to only be a single choice which is more violence. But I don't see how you can reason with these people.


RE: Good
By JonnyDough on 12/3/2007 3:47:17 PM , Rating: 1
There is an option. Instead of sending our border patrol from the Mexican border over to Iraq to train Iraqi's in how to patrol a border, our soldiers could be HERE, defending OUR BORDERS. Isn't that what the military was designed for? Since when is America a warring nation? I don't know about you, but I sure as hell didn't vote for that. We are not WANTED as world police. We don't have the BUDGET for it. WHY ARE WE DOING IT?!!!


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 4:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
No, our military is not designed to solely protect our borders. If it was, do you think we would need to be able to project power to anywhere in the world like we do now? Unfortunately, we have become the world's police, a job we seem to have earned during WWII and reinforced after the end of the Cold War. I'm not personally comfortable with it either - seems to me a lot of other nations are slacking on their own responsibilities to maintain a reasonable world order in this way.

In addition, you can't effectively guard the borders of a "free" country. No, the way you solve the illegal immigration problem (which I assume you are getting at) is to eliminate the economic opportunities that attracts illegals in the first place. In other words, crack down and enforce the law against employers who are illegally hiring these workers. Do that, and you won't need guards at the border, since nobody will want to come here in that way.

The laws are even already on the books; they're just not enforced. It frustrates me beyond all belief that the idiot politicians in Washington completely refuse to fix that situation and enforce our laws.


RE: Good
By rcc on 12/4/2007 1:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The laws are even already on the books; they're just not enforced. It frustrates me beyond all belief that the idiot politicians in Washington completely refuse to fix that situation and enforce our laws.


It's all a matter of money and will. Money? Well, perhaps if we weren't spending so much on education and healthcare of illegal immigrants we could afford to enforce the laws more vigorously. Then again, I doubt they'd let us do that. : )


RE: Good
By Polynikes on 12/3/2007 12:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
If you take fire from a hospital, you're GOING to shoot back. Self-defense and common sense take precedence. It's clearly allowed in our rules of engagement. (I'm a former Marine infantryman. Hospitals and churches are off-limits only so long as they're not being used for military purposes.)


RE: Good
By CascadingDarkness on 12/3/2007 1:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
True poly, but you're going to return fire on that window. You're not likely to order in an airstrike, have an Abrahms start unloading shells, or stryker pummel it either. These might be options in other situations, but if it's a hospital you can't exactly assume there are no non-combatants inside as easily as another building. You'd have to have some good intel that combatants already forced everyone else out before you order in some gunships.


RE: Good
By TSS on 12/3/2007 12:19:39 PM , Rating: 3
the Vietnamese did.

you guys should be careful not to fall into a trap. this time the enemy might not be able to hide behind bushes and trees, but they do live in a big sandbox that's not very kind on any material. right now the american economy isn't at it's brightest and it's costing a lot of money to keep said supremacy. and now, after already planning to spend 24 billions on planes, the army needs about 50 more billion for planes. they won't get all of it but still some more money will be needed to spend. together with the billions going to iraq, billions already spent and more billions asked by bush...

maybe the way to victory for the terrorists is making this war last as long and cost as much as they can manage. maybe they also know that. you guys might be the most powerful open ground army... but your not fighting in open ground. your air superiority is supreme... yet your enemy never had any planes. your weapons have the best accuracy and most damage... yet stamina has had to pay for it (you can say what you want about the abrams, it does use a heck of alot of fuel).

their war effort runs on faith, yours runs on money. it's not hard to see which one will run out first. don't forget, hitler, napoleon, caesar and alexander the great all once had big world (for as far as was known at the time) dominating army's, all thought unstoppable.

and all have fallen because of their own arrogance.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 12:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
You bring up some potentially good points, but your argument has a fatal flaw - historically, war spending has been good for the US economy, not bad for it. For example, spending more on F-22's will be a boon for that portion of the US economy.

But I personally hope the US goes into more of a phase of military isolationism, just a little more than we are now, going forward. I don't see why the US should be engaged in protracted boots-on-the-ground wars and nation building. Little or nothing can be gained from that. I think the previous Gulf Wars were are more intelligent use of our military strengths - knock down an enemy without destroying him, but at the same time without taking huge risks and incurring huge costs (in lives and dollars).


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/3/2007 1:43:34 PM , Rating: 2

You don't realise just how far the US wealth has falled since Vietnam. War damages an economy- unless someone else is paying for it. The UK paid the US a lot of money in WW2 (finished paying of the debt last year), thats what sparked the myth that spending on war is profitable. It is if you are selling the weapons to someone else.

What you are advocating is socialism by the way - spending money on employees to produce something that is fundamentally worthless -if you don't fight.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/3/2007 2:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
Police protection is fundamentally worthless, but your argument, if a policemen doesn't jail any criminals in any particular day.

Socialism is also not particularly identified with any sort of military or foreign policy position; it's all about redistribution of wealth in its many various forms. Advocating military superiority, taken in isolation, means nothing about a persons positions on social and economic issues.

Also, the UK ran out of money so fast that your reasoning fails completely to explain the massive economic boom following WW2. There were a lot of factors that went in to it, chief of which I believe was the largest stroke of luck in the history of man that the economy didn't overheat and fly apart, but cash-and-carry ended so quick as to be irrelevant, and sorry, but while our new bases acquired through lend-lease were nice, they didn't do anything for the economy.

Government spending does boost the economy; google and figure out how to construct an AS/AD model, then look for yourself what an increase in 'G' does. To get in to the details, it'll boost GDP at the expense of 'C', personal consumption.


RE: Good
By barclay on 12/3/2007 8:50:47 PM , Rating: 3
> "Government spending does boost the economy"

If by boost you mean a short uptick that in the long term tends to result in monetary inflation, then yes...

The often used analogy of paying people to dig holes and fill them back up will boost "real" GDP in the short term, but only because there is a lag time before inflation is affected.

The amount of inflation is proportional to how "useful" the spending was. Greater inflation would result from government funding hole digging than for government building a needed bridge.

Military spending is somewhere between those two extremes. The degree of its "usefulness" mostly comes from two areas: 1)how well it insures or improves stability domestically or worldwide and, 2) how easily the military tech. breakthroughs can be converted to consumer tech.

The first area represents the initial and fundamental justification for military spending. Many people, however, will use the second argument as justification for military spending, arguing that it improves the economy. But if economic growth is the goal, then direct consumer research would be more efficient.

Of course, upon accepting that position, it is hard to make the case for government to be involved at all in consumer research since the market is far more efficient at organizing such funding.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/3/2007 11:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
That was a great response. I agree on most points. I was wrong to be speak that broadly.

I was making a case, or should've been, that WW2 seemed to have a positive impact on the US economy. Before the outbreak, we were recovering from the depression, though not that well off. NBER notes the trough of the Depression as 1938; if I remember right, that coincides pretty well with the start of covert mobilization. I haven't studied the issue deeply at all, but if I had to guess I'd think that it created technological advances like you noted, and that paying some servicemen in bonds and keeping everyone at home so busy making Boeings & butter was sufficient to keep a lid on the inflationary genie's bottle long enough for the war to end before it became untenable. After it was over, here's all this new capital equipment created by command of Uncle Sam, so lets use it! Doesn't hurt that it added the other half the human population to the work force, who once empowered never completely gave up their formal sector jobs (I'm aware they worked in the informal sector a lot previous to that). It also fits along quite well with Keynesian economics; when the times are rough, run a massive deficit. When they're good, run a surplus, and hope the central planners got their calculus right.

WW2, though, was different. Every war since then can be identified pretty well by checking out NBER.org's official recession dates, so in principle, for war spending, I generally agree. GDP data shows, after the Depression, almost unbroken growth after the start of mobilization. You essentially got at the idea of providing public goods, so we agree there. I'd just wave a small flag and say special situations made WW2 a little different, and unlike the OP who suggested the US somehow benefited because of UK money, we grew due to other factors.


RE: Good
By CascadingDarkness on 12/3/2007 2:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. It's often brought up that you need boots-on-the-ground to win . I don't see how that made sense in this case because anyone who thinks you can win a war on terror is delusional. Sure you can strike blows, but it's more just lose-lose. Boots-on-the-ground just mean you have more targets walking around in those boots for the enemy to kill, and a hell lot more of total cost.

I rather would have gone with tons of airborne ordinance. An occasional incursion if they have good intel. I know this wouldn't be as effective as full war, but marines with gunship support can still kill terrorist cells pretty well if they are on alert at a nearby friendly areas. It would likely cost more per strike/mission, but far less than full scale war.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 3:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Bush Sr. knew how to take care of Saddam. Too bad his son didn't learn the lesson from dad.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 8:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad Bush Sr encouraged the Shiite to revolt against Saddam and then not back them up. The thousand and thousands that died might have a different opinion on that.


RE: Good
By TSS on 12/3/2007 5:11:51 PM , Rating: 3
ah but your arguement has one as well: war conditions now are different.

alexander the great knew that if he moved his army away from water, he would be dead meat. so, he stayed near water and thus conquered persia. he became ill and went too far, thats what killed him in the end, but he could've gotten alot further. right now your water is oil. wars, in the old days, was good for the economy as in it supplied jobs and thus created more money then was lost in the actual fighting, PROVIDED they where succesfull in their respective goals. however that has changed.

right now your fighting a war for oil using huge amounts of oil. an uneducated guess from me would be everybody could drive another year if we took all the oil already spent on iraq. now, money can replace oil as in you can buy your oil elsewhere with money. it's more expensive then getting your own oil, but it's a sollution and it's always been a viable one. until now.

resources for a war used to be wood and iron, later gunpowder. all where just as important, and securing enough of each was as well. hell anybody who's ever played a strategy game should know that. in the event of not having enough resources, gold can be used to buy what you need extra. in the 20th century all our weapons became metal and each country has more then enough metal so that fell out of the equation. as we learned to power our weapons with oil (and just about anything else) wood is nearly un used in the militairy today compared to the old. so really the only resource you need to worry now is oil, or money to buy oil with.

now the current day events. oil is slowly becoming scarce, which was never the case in any previous war. then, the war fought is in a country which is the 2nd largest supplier of oil in the world, with the army which uses the most oil in the world. finally, the dollar's very weak right now, amerika's nigh broke if not already, meaning you don't have any money left to buy what you need.

your army buying your aircraft made with your resources by your workers with your taxpayers money with they have just earned in their job with making aircraft.... it's a circulation. sure not all money from those aircraft builders goes into tax but not all taxpayers are aircraft builders.

the saving grace in this matter would be your export, which is the only thing going up. that's because of the weak dollar, and as the dollar groes weaker american goods are cheaper so export rises. but that also has a flaw, which should be blatantly obvious but even i just thought of it now: the import.

modern day america produces far far less then WWII america. import has risen tremendously. meaning your giving alot more money to the outside world then you are getting from the outside world. in WWII and even vietnam, as the patent trend isn't that old, the american economy was a force to be reconed with. while right now it's on it's knees, the chinese are growing at a tremendous rate. soon, your import is going to get even more expensive as the yuan will go up in worth as well.

if any of the big oil producing country's switches its oil from dollars to euro's, it's game over. if china uses it's financial abomb, it's game over. if anything happens to your suppliers right now, it's game over. and finally... if the dollar drops too far... it's game over.

oil is the most dangerous substance we know. the only thing oil is good for is costing us money.and you don't have any money.


RE: Good
By rcc on 12/4/2007 2:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Nicely written. Out in left field, but nicely written.


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/3/2007 1:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
The technique was described in a book called the 'Afghanistan Bear Trap'. It how the Soviets were defeated and credit was taked for it by both bin-Laded and their allies the Neocons, The slow economic strangulation of a super power.

To a large extent that was the purpose of 9/11 - to drag the west into a War of Attrition which would be a economic disaster. Its succeeded brilliantly, however al-Queada have done what they always do, as extremists. They start killing their own supporters, making their allies (shia) turning against them.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 3:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
What evidence do you have that our reaction to 9/11 has damaged our economy? Sure, there was an immediate hit around the time of 9/11 due to the crisis itself, but I don't see that we've really had any related measurable economic problems since then.

To listen to you, one would think our economy is in a death-spiral, which is clearly not the case.


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 12/3/2007 3:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Open your eyes and quit pretending to be stupid.

GWB has effectively DOUBLED (accounting for inflation its near enough) the US debt chasing after shadows. The US economy will have to pay it back sometime, so while you may not notice it today, you will sometime in the future.

The US is now almost 10 TRILLION dollars in debt, up from 5.6 or so when Bush entered office.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 4:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, no offense, but you must have slept through your econ courses or skipped them entirely.

Where did you get the idea that the debt would have to be paid back, ever?

Where did you get the idea that a public debt damages our economy?

Both of those are false beliefs. If you don't believe me, then you'll have to explain the relative success of our economy since WWII.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 4:27:33 PM , Rating: 1
He brings up a good point.


RE: Good
By barclay on 12/3/2007 9:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

Our economy has grown despite public debt--not because of it or even independently of it. The debt has and continues to weakened the dollar, while also stealing potential capital from the far more efficient private sector. Our economy would be leaps and bounds better than it is now if we had no debt. It is a millstone around our neck that we should endeavor to cast off.

Also, it is worth mentioning that people and countries only continue to buy US debt so long as they have faith that the US Govt will be able to repay it. The recently weakening dollar, in part, reflects a dwindling faith.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 10:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
From what I understand, the public debt will weaken the dollar if the government frequently or recently defaults on debt, which hasn't happened AFAIK. :o) The more likely explanation for the weak dollar is the US trade deficit.

ref. http://www.chicagofed.org/consumer_information/str...


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 12/4/2007 6:14:58 AM , Rating: 2
Where did you get the idea that the debt would have to be paid back, ever?

Do you know nothing? Of course not - you think that the recent history of the USA is indicative of the ways of the world in general. Unfortunately there are far too many US citizens that think the same way.

Currently China (yes China, the same country half the rednecks on here were bashing in other threads) is propping up the dollar (and the US economy by proxy) by buying up so much of the extra USD the fed is pumping out to keep your economy afloat.

Whenever they decide to wage an economic war on the USA (or they can merely threaten to -> they have your economy by the balls and make no mistake about that!), they will/can drop their dollars onto the world market, cue USD freefall. Every import (like oil for instance) will cost your country (at least) twice as much as before. If you decide to go on holiday abroad, your dollars will be almost worthless in exchange rates.

The relative success of your economy post WW2 is entirely down to the petro-dollar, with the USD being the prime currency for international oil (read - everything else as well) exchanges, other countries buy up all the USD on the market to strengthen their own currency reserves. This allows your govt to pump out more and more USD without a mad inflation rate.

Saddam Hussein started selling oil in Euro mid 2001 (and guess what, the dollar dipped dramatically H2 2001) - that could not be allowed to continue to control the country, that is why your soldiers are in Iraq.


RE: Good
By goz314 on 12/3/2007 12:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We fight more of a politically correct war then our adversaries. If we didnt have to fight this way then no one would stand a chance.


... including all of the innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire.

I agree. Our armed forces follow strict rules of engagement for very good reasons. Not all of those rules are political. Some of them are more fundamentally moral or ethical as established by our society.

If these latter rules are broken or crossed then in essence our armed forces would be no 'better' than the enemies they endeavor to defeat.


RE: Good
By Xerio on 12/3/2007 12:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call it politically correct. I would call it morally correct. BIG difference.


RE: Good
By Shining Arcanine on 12/3/2007 11:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
History showed that a technologically superior army with greater numbers can be defeated by a smaller army with inferior technology, so long as the smaller army has better troops and officers.

Hannibal's conquest of Rome is an example of this, although he was recalled. Marc Anthony's defeat in the middle east when his technologically superior Roman army outnumbered the enemy 4-1 is another example of this (the opposing general was smart enough to bring mounted archers and like 1000 camels to resupply the archers). General Patton's defeat of Nazi Germany is another example of this.

A less advanced army with greater numbers against a more advanced army with lesser numbers is the equivalent of a enormous slaughter.


RE: Good
By DM0407 on 12/3/2007 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-37

Those pesky Russians have a few fighters that could give the F-22 a run for its money. SU-37 granted not many will be built due to budget restraints, but it can compete with the F-22 in everything but stealth, it also has a rear facing radar that can fire missiles behind it.

Sukhoi's chief designer Mikhail Simonov was so confident about the advantage bestowed by the aircraft's thrust vectoring system, that he challenged any U.S. aircraft to a mock dogfight "... any time, any place!" But as it stands the Su-37 has not been ordered into production.


RE: Good
By weskurtz0081 on 12/3/2007 1:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot shoot down what your radar cannot see.


RE: Good
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/3/2007 2:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
Tell that to the F-117 pilot that got shot down a few years ago ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk#Comba...


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 2:43:36 PM , Rating: 3
We should've smart bombed that wreckage.


RE: Good
By weskurtz0081 on 12/3/2007 2:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
The F-117 pilot was not shot down by another aircraft though, he was shot down by surface to air missle guided by ground radar, not an air to air missle with an aircraft trying to get the initial lock on another aircraft. Not to mention, I imagine stealth tech has changed a bit since then. Just look at the aircraft's, it pretty easy to tell that they are no where near the same design. So, just because some SAM shot down an old F-117, doesn't mean that they would be able to use the same method to see an F-22.

And, even if they could, it's very unlikely that they will be able to accomplish the same feat using fighter radar.


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 12/3/2007 2:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but it really wouldn't.

The Su-37 you refer to never will enter production, instead another update, the Su-35 (or Su-27BM) is being produced now to enter service 2009ish.

Either way, neither aircraft could get within range of the F-22 to use any maneuverability advantage that *may* (and the jury is out on that) exist.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 10:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
Ditto.

And its good news for my company since maybe that means some more business for my company. ;)


RE: Good
By SirRoger on 12/3/2007 10:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
The F-22 is an amazing aircraft, but is very expensive. The capabilities of the F-22 allow it to make less expensive aircraft in a strike package more effective. Using a combination of F-22s, F-15s or 16s the group can be very effective while keeping costs down.


RE: Good
By ajfink on 12/3/2007 12:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's interesting that these F-15 problems make the headlines right at a budgeting and acquisitions time....


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 12:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but I'm sure it's just a conincidence. :o)


RE: Good
By mmntech on 12/3/2007 10:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm an aviation junkie. It's good to finally see some of the new designs coming out actually coming into service. Military aviation in North America has really been stagnant over the last 30 years.

The F-22 is an impressive plane if anybody has seen it. They introduced them at the Canadian International Airshow. Very fast,very loud. The CIA received a record number of noise complaints from its appearance alone. lol.

The next big thing is the F-35, which is yet a greater improvement. Supposedly Canada is interested in buying these to replace the F-18.


RE: Good
By maverick85wd on 12/3/2007 10:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The next big thing is the F-35, which is yet a greater improvement.


The F-22 has two engines and is replacing the F-15... the F-35 has one engine and is replacing the F-16. The F-35's development was more recent so it has a better EW package, however the F-22 will probably be retro-fitted with either the same package as what's in the 35 or an even newer one sometime in the future.


RE: Good
By Xerio on 12/3/2007 10:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
A big difference between the F-22 and F-35 is cost.
quote:
In 2014, when production reaches about 21 airplanes per month, the F-35A will cost $48 million a copy. The F-35B and F-35C will cost $62 million and $63 million, respectively. - http://www.afa.org/magazine/Sept2006/0906altitude....
Full production won't happen until 2014 (according to the above article) but I would say that the difference in cost between the F-22 and the F-35 should be hearalded.


RE: Good
By Etsp on 12/3/2007 11:10:42 AM , Rating: 2
All three of those prices you listed are for the F-35's... I would like to see the price discrepancies however...


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 12/3/2007 11:58:34 AM , Rating: 2
Those figures are wayyyy out of date dude...

triple them!


RE: Good
By ajfink on 12/3/2007 11:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that the F-35 was developed with many of the materials and technologies developed for the F-22, which has thus brought its cost down considerably. In most respects, the F-35 is the little brother of the F-22, and the big brother is still the more deadly air combat of the two.

The "neatest" version is the Marine variant.


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 12/3/2007 12:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
From defense-aerospace.com:

n April 2007, the Pentagon revealed that the total cost of the JSF had increased to $299.8 billion for 2,458 aircraft, or $121.97 million per aircraft. This is far in excess of the prices mentioned by Lockheed Martin, the program’s prime contractor, which are generally in the $60-$70 million range.

Do not believe a word Lockheed-Martin say - they put an unbelievable amount of spin on any press release!


RE: Good
By Xerio on 12/3/2007 1:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
That is true. I should have done a little more research before posting that. I did hear on "Modern Marvels" over the weekend that the cost was around $50 million, but could not substantiate that.


RE: Good
By Xerio on 12/3/2007 1:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a very good article (dated today) on the cost of the F-35: http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/337511...

quote:
Lockheed and the Pentagon have been talking with representatives of the eight nations that have contributed $4 billion-plus to the Lightning II program about placing early orders for production in 2011-13, but the high price is a deterrent.

"Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes earlier unless we can help them mitigate the fact the earlier airplanes cost more," Tom Burbage, Lockheed executive vice president and F-35 program general manager, said in a recent interview.


It looks like the biggest reason for the higher cost of the F-35 is due to the "partner countries" not buying the planes until a few years into the next decade.

And yes, I am trying to make up for my crappy original post. :D


RE: Good
By TSS on 12/4/2007 9:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
funny though how those planes have to cost so much. a fokker doublewing with an guided missle and radar would probably still be able to take out an F22 with a little luck.

after so many generations of *F* planes, ya'd think they'd know how to build them cheap.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/3/2007 2:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Is this the laymen method of calculating cost, or is the marginal cost of each additional unit of production 122m?

It sounds to me like perhaps LockMart, of which I don't care for any more then you, may be quoting marginal cost and you may be quoting total investment / production run.


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 12/3/2007 3:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
Its the cost per aircraft (as procurement stands) including R&D.

If they stopped the program now, about 100-150 billion (ish) is flushed down the drain, but instead of wasting the other 150-200 billion on finishing the R&D and building F-35s, around a 1000 F-22s could be bought.


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 12/3/2007 3:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
They'll never meet that cost they quote either.

It'll be around 100 million a pop just to make the damn thing.


RE: Good
By 91TTZ on 12/3/2007 8:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In April 2007, the Pentagon revealed that the total cost of the JSF had increased to $299.8 billion for 2,458 aircraft, or $121.97 million per aircraft. This is far in excess of the prices mentioned by Lockheed Martin, the program’s prime contractor, which are generally in the $60-$70 million range.


They're talking about two different things. One side is talking about the price to build each aircraft. It will cost somewhere around 50-70 million to build each aircraft.

The other source is talking about the program cost divided by the number of aircraft produced. They're including the R&D money in that figure, which is very misleading. That R&D money is spent whether you decide to build any planes or not. If R&D costs $100 billion and each aircraft costs $50 million, if they decide to build 100 aircraft they'll say that each one cost $1.05 billion a piece to build. If they build 1,000 of them, they'll say that they cost $150 million a piece to build. If they built 2,000, they'd say they cost $100 a million a piece to built.


RE: Good
By Noya on 12/3/2007 12:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
The F35 uses tech developed for the F22, so if you calculated the R&D (as I believe they do with the F22) I'm sure the cost would be much closer between them.


RE: Good
By theapparition on 12/3/2007 10:41:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The next big thing is the F-35, which is yet a greater improvement. Supposedly Canada is interested in buying these to replace the F-18.

The F-35 is not to replace the F-22's, only compliment them. In pure specs, the F-22 will outperform anything the Airforce version of the F-35 can do. The F-35 is more of a jack-of-all-trades aircraft, with versions for the Airforce to replace F-16's, Marine versions to replace Harriers and Navy versions to replace F-18's.


RE: Good
By Fnoob on 12/3/2007 10:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
Make more of the baddest planes in the sky? Good plan indeed. Even if they cost 3-5x what an F-15 costs, they provide 100x the air superiority.

I have a few F-22 pilot friends in my neighborhood. These guys will unabashedly tell you that they have the greatest job in the world. They say the worst part of their day is getting out of that plane.


RE: Good
By goz314 on 12/3/2007 12:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Make more of the baddest planes in the sky? Good plan indeed. Even if they cost 3-5x what an F-15 costs, they provide 100x the air superiority.


So, by that logic, why do the armed forces need more F-22s than those already planned and funded for? If it is such a great plane providing 100x the air superiority as previous aircraft, then the air force should be able to do more with less.

Fewer aircraft means fewer pilots and support personnel. Also, it may allow for the consolidation of resources when it comes to the number of air bases being funded and ultimately kept open.

If the touted capabilities of the F-22 are real, then the scope of the air force's role should be accordingly adjusted downward and the resulting cost savings should be passed along to the American taxpayer.


RE: Good
By kextyn on 12/3/2007 1:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22 dominates anything out there right now. It can take on several F-15s by itself (don't remember the exact number from the war games, but it's pretty impressive.) The reason why we need more of them is because eventually they'll have competition in the sky as other countries catch up. At that point we can't just suddenly start building more. And as you can see with the current aircraft, it will be our #1 aircraft for many years before we'll have a replacement. So get as many as we can now so that they're not as stressed years from now.


RE: Good
By TITAN1080 on 12/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 10:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see us doing any 'dog-fighting' anytime in the near future, (unless Russia keeps finding tons of oil, they will once again be our adversary, regardless), so an airframe that is strictly a fighter seems like sort-of a waste.

Dont you think there's a reason no one wants to 'dog-fight' with us?

Its definately NOT a waste, its a worthwhile upgrade to replace old, and out of date, fighter planes.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 12:09:23 PM , Rating: 5
Why fix what isn't broken. The A10 is an awesome, reliable plane. Why replace it when its fully capable of the job. It may cost millions to upgrade them, but it'll cost billions to develop a new plane. The role of the A10 doesn't require the latest technology.


RE: Good
By Screwballl on 12/3/2007 12:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
agreed

Now to make some money, sell off these failure prone fighters to some middle eastern country so if we ever have to fight them, they will be mostly grounded still. Plus the F-22 is a much stronger and better fighter all around so the F-15s should be easy targets... if it ever came down to it.


Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By rangerdavid on 12/3/2007 11:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
Why do we need these things? Since when has it mattered how maneuverable or fast your aircraft is? Most air-to-air engagements occur “over-the-horizon” now. Gone are the days of trying to maneuver to bring your guns to bear on your airborne enemy. Now, radar systems identify your bogie the second it is airborne, someone in an AWACS gives you the go, and you press the button to launch a radar-guided missile in the right general direction. Done. “Fighter” aircraft just aren’t “fighters” anymore – they are dumb airborne weapons platforms with smart weapons and electronics. It’s more important that they have good gas mileage (can stay airborne, or “on station” as long as possible) to respond with precision fire support to assist ground troops than anything else. Basically, the best electronic detection systems win dogfights now – I see you first, I launch a missile to shoot you down first, end of story.

And what about UAVs like the Predator? A lot cheaper… I think the day of the combat pilot is coming to an end, but because pilots run the Air Force, they will linger on long after their obsolescence.

And $45-60 million per plane? Do you have any idea how many textbooks, ambulances and medicine that plane is costing you?




RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 12:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
We will always need combat pilots. Sure the day of the dogfight like in World War 2 is largely over. But it's still important to maintain air superiority. Just because you can launch a radar guided missile from 3 miles out, doesn't mean its going to hit its target. A good pilot with a good plane can avoid the missile. Also, modern fighter's are near invisible to radar.


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By Amiga500 on 12/3/2007 1:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, its virtually impossible for any pilot in any aircraft to out maneuver a missile now.

Its a rule of thumb that a missile has to be 4x more maneuverable than the target aircraft to guarantee killing it. Well, pilots are limited to around 10g's and all modern missiles AIM-120C AMRAAM, AIM-9X Box Office, Python 5, ASRAAM, Meteor, Archer, R-27 & R-77 all comfortably exceed 40g.

Thus, to beat a missile, lock must be broken, and thats much easier said than done with modern ECCM.


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By CascadingDarkness on 12/3/2007 5:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no expert on all this stuff but he's my reference to something like that marked guaranteed .

"I can crap in a box and mark it Guaranteed. If that's what you want." - Tommy Boy

I wouldn't call a 90% Pk quite guaranteed. Especially at long ranges where it has less time to manuver at the end of it's flight.


By Amiga500 on 12/4/2007 6:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
You not notice I clearly differentiated between outmaneuver and break lock?

Its impossible to outmaneuver the newer gen of missiles, it is possible to out-smart the seeker though.


By cputeq on 12/3/2007 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Speed and maneuverability matter when you're fighting ground targets -- the Raptor, while primarily an air-superiority jet, also functions as an air-to-ground strike jet.

Speed also matters when you're called to intercept targets or fleeing from others.

You're seeing the F-22 as an air-to-air fighter *only*, which it isn't.

As for Predators -- A slow, remote-control jet can only do so much. They're fishbait for fighters, so comparing them to an true attack jet is laughable.

A Predator's best use is nighttime recon / attack against ground targets.


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By tallcool1 on 12/3/2007 1:00:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
And $45-60 million per plane? Do you have any idea how many textbooks, ambulances and medicine that plane is costing you?


“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”

~ John F. Kennedy ~


By Xerio on 12/3/2007 1:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
HOO RAH!


By Ringold on 12/3/2007 11:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
That was when the Democratic party had just won an election based on the premise that Eisenhower was far too soft on defense and that we had to show the Soviet's that America was a nation of men, not to be pushed around and toyed with. He also gave us Apollo. The same party today runs on the platform of withdrawal, many candidates support a scaled back military, Obama suggests a 5 year delay (= cancellation) of Orion, and sends its House majority leader to lick the feet of every Middle Eastern criminal she can and can't wait to send her and others all around the globe to engage in unconditional dialogue.

I'd say the times, and roles of parties, have reversed entirely. ;) Note that many current Republicans were originally Democrats who got there by originally being Democrats, then forced to identify as Dixiecrats before ultimately becoming Republican.

Though not entirely; I wonder how the world would be different if Goldwater had beat Johnson?


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 2:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And $45-60 million per plane? Do you have any idea how many textbooks, ambulances and medicine that plane is costing you?

Textbooks are paid for by the local budget, i.e - property taxes. Ambulances are paid for by city taxes. Medicine is private sector and is not technically coming out of our federal taxes - unless you are counting medicare/medicaid.

So your answer, technically, is zero.


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By Ringold on 12/3/2007 3:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you mdogs, but I'm tired of hearing that line of argument from people. I guess people dont understand that government spending a dollar with the right hand doesn't impact the spending of the left hand. More accurately, people I think selectively choose not to understand this when faced with spending they fundamentally disagree with. If it were spending they did agree with, well, golly, the Treasury can issue a few more t-bills and bonds, no problem!


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 3:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly the crux of the problem - each citizen wants the government to spend taxpayer dollars exactly based on their priorities. Which is never going to happen since we all have different values.

We just have to accept that some amount of government spending is going to be things that we ourselves disagree with. And we have to make sure that the government doesn't engage in silly spending for things that no citizen in their right mind would support.

I also think I've been guilty of the reasoning you debunk, since it is intuitive/common sense, but forgetting that the government has an effectively unlimited spending capacity, unlike (most of) us.


By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 5:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
with. And we have to make sure that the government doesn't engage in silly spending for things that no citizen in their right mind would support.

Like Hillary's proposed Woodstock Museum? haha What a sham that was....and what a sham she is as well.


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 5:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
You're right Ringold, because I've just about had it with these people as well. They have absolutely no concept of where property, city, state, and federal taxes go, as well as what they are used for. They seem to think that we pay a total of X% of each paycheck towards taxes, and all the money in lumped into a single bucket to be distributed for all items in the US.

They blame the federal government for oil prices - when in fact they should be blaming a PORTION of the federal govt for oil prices - most notably the democrats with their "crisis" talk, and the environmental lobbyist with their protest to allow us to find our own oil on US soil. They should really blame the state and local governments since they are responsible for the majority of taxes on gasoline. I dont think they understand the high percentage of the price of a gallon of gasoline really institutes an extremly high percentage of tax. Without that taxation, gas really would be about 33% less per gallon.

The ambulance statement was stupid as those are city workers and city governed items paid for by local and sales tax.

School are funded by property taxes, which is why people cant stand the school levy's - especially when they dont have kids who attend the school. In all honesty - if they really want more money for textbooks, then get rid of extra cirricular activities: football, baseball, the football fields, etc. Those are not necessary forms of education, but more less extra cirricular activites performed OUTSIDE of school hours - heck, even the coaches are paid for by property taxes.

But the nature of these people is to complain when spending doesn't benefit them...and most of the liberal left are not paying hardly any taxes to begin with...so not sure where they get off on this.


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 6:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In all honesty - if they really want more money for textbooks, then get rid of extra cirricular activities: football, baseball, the football fields, etc.

Have to disagree with you on that one. America is becoming a country of couch potatoes, and eliminating physical education in schools will just make that problem worse. Kids need to learn the value of physical fitness in school along with their academic subjects. They're certainly not going to learn it at home.


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 6:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
Dont get me wrong Tom - im not actually in favor of getting rid of them. Im just playing devils advocate for the argument of him complaining that there is not enough money for textbooks. I played HS sports - in fact, my baseball scholarship is what allowed me to get into college cheaper, so i am by no means in favor of getting rid of it.

However, I still beleive that kids who play HS sports - those sports should be funded by the parents of the kids who play them. Especially considering these sports have "tryouts" and dont actually let all students play - so why should the parents of the student who wasnt selected have to pay for other kids to play those sports? Just for sake of argument.


RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned this -
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 8:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I can see your point on that. I was actually a geek in school and hated sports. But I recognize the value of having them in school.


By 91TTZ on 12/3/2007 3:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22 is all about stealth, efficiency, and advanced electronics. Its powerful radar and stealth means that it can detect enemies before they can detect it.


F-15 in picture
By Black69ta on 12/3/2007 10:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
That is a F-15 in the picture? is that the F-15E variant? I don't remember a Delta wing F-15, it looks cool though.




RE: F-15 in picture
By probedb on 12/3/2007 10:15:23 AM , Rating: 1
Delta wing? You just can't see the rear wings in that picture.


RE: F-15 in picture
By glennpratt on 12/3/2007 10:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
That's a regular USAF F-15C. The F-15 has huge wings and the tailplane starts aft of the vertical stabilizer , just like the F-22's next to it.


RE: F-15 in picture
By mjcutri on 12/3/2007 10:26:33 AM , Rating: 1
It's not a delta wing. The rear elevators are just cut off in the picture.

http://www.floridaguard.army.mil/news/read.asp?did...


Too political
By luhar49 on 12/4/2007 12:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps not many people realise that a lot of non Americans like me visit Dailytech for tech related news updates. The comments posted here also add a lot of interesting/informative perspective and I am a regular reader. But some of the tech related news gets drawn into too much of a political debate which is very unsavory. It looks at everything from US centric point of view.

The way I see it is that US has got strategic and commercial interests around the world. Most of the wars it fights are to protect those interests. The objective is to maintain the superiority of US forces and businesses around the globe. There is nothing wrong with that. Any nation that is in a position of power would do that. British did it before US so its not without precedent.

Whats wrong is the "we fight for good causes" line that some posters are taking. US doesnt go fighting wars to save the helpless people from some evil regime. It only does it to protect its own interests.

So if US doesnt have any strategic interest in a place with humanitarian crisis(like Sudan), then they will stay away. If a regime full of islamic fundamentalists(Taliban) is fighting against the enemy(USSR), then its good to support it. If they turn against you, crush them.

Another point is that someone living a comfortable life in a city can never imagine how life is in a war zone. For someone who watches his family die in front of his eyes, any course of action to extract revenge would seem right. So some of the extreme actions reported from the war zones are born out of extreme hatred. Thats something that cant be crushed with power. Suppressing it just leads to the problem getting worse.

The way things are going right now, the problem of fundamentalism is just growing. If US makes the mistake of invading Iran, then it will just get out of hand. Hopefully Bush will be out of office before he can start another war.




RE: Too political
By TomZ on 12/4/2007 5:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whats wrong is the "we fight for good causes" line that some posters are taking. US doesnt go fighting wars to save the helpless people from some evil regime. It only does it to protect its own interests.

I disagree, and I think the reality is exactly the opposite.

We are not in Iraq because of the oil - Iraqi oil has always found its way into the market before and after our occupation. Furthermore, the US has not plundered Iraqi oil or the resulting wealth from selling that oil.

The real reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush Administration wanted to remove Hussain because of humanitarian reasons, and to help promote democracy and "The American Way" in the Middle East. This is wrong in my opinion - it is an unjustifiable use of the US military, especially when you consider the cost to the US in the various ways that count - lives lost, injuries, dollars, etc.

In my opinion, the US military should be primarily used to protect the US as well as US interests around the world. That is its intended purpose and what most Americans expect.

In addition to that, I think the US military can be used for humanitarian interventions, but in my view, this should only be done as a part of a multilateral operation headed by the UN.

And under no circumstances should the military be used to wage war for the purpose of promoting democracy, except when doing so for other important reasons (e.g., WWII).


RE: Too political
By luhar49 on 12/5/2007 1:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate where you are coming from.

But I cant agree that the aim of Iraqi invasion was solely to promote Democracy in Iraq. If that was the case, US should have finished off Saddam in the first Gulf War. Its more about installing US friendly regimes in middle east so that they dont cause trouble regionally and globally. What form of governance is present, doesnt matter.

Saudi Arabia is hardly a full blown democracy, but they are oil rich and US allies so everyone is happy. Saudis have been financing Islamic fundamentalists for years, but it was all monitored and not hurting US interests, so it was fine. Saddam was supported during Iran-Iraq war..because he was useful against a common enemy. India is world's biggest democracy, but for years US supported a dictator lead Pakistan over it. Its changing now though because US needs India to check China's rise.

Basically the point is that US doesnt always go to war for "good" causes. For US the world is just a big political board where moves have to be made to maintain balances of power and retain a position of power(commercial and military).



Discount?
By System48 on 12/3/2007 1:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
And I thought you were suppose to save money when buying bulk, surely they could get a buy 5 get 1 half off deal. ;p




RE: Discount?
By Dactyl on 12/3/2007 11:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
We have the OLPC deal for purchasing fighter jets.

Buy 2, keep 1. Give the other one to a foreign country.


Money anyone?
By pauldovi on 12/3/2007 10:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
The Pentagon has been starving the Air Force of money for the last 15 years. Projection of air power has become the norm and expected by Congressmen, even as they reduce Air Force funding in favor of the Army. The Air Force has had its force overhaul delayed repeatedly since the early 1990's. Hopefully this will help Congress realize that the Air Force needs more money, the average age of its assets is increasing rapidly. Could you image how wars would be different without the Air Force?




A few things
By Amiga500 on 12/3/2007 11:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
1. Fighter airframes wear much quicker than others, exposing an airframe to 8 or 9 g for a few seconds is literally hours of airframe life at 1 g or thereabouts. This is why a BUFF frame can keep going, but the eagle is dying.

2. The USAF should be buying more F-22s, alot more. The expensive bit is done (the R&D), and Raptors can be made for around $135 million each now IIRC. The F-35/JSF is a lame duck, costs are spiralling, with each of the projected airframes now standing at $120 million each (to swallow the R&D - which is still snowballing - so that figure is only going to rise).

3. The USAF is updating the A-10 fleet to -10C standard I believe.

4. Money saved on proposed AESA radar modifications to the eagles will probably go towards a few new F-22s now.




Outsource Production?
By teckytech9 on 12/4/2007 3:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The original plan was to produce 183 F-22s at a cost of $132 million USD each.

Lets just set up shop in China and import the finished product. That would sure save the taxpayers a bundle and divert the savings to schools, hospitals, and other social programs. We could also convince the Chinese to stop selling their own fighters to other nations, in exchange for ours. We could train the Chinese to write avionics software and design advanced parts to retrofit the fighters for delivery everywhere.

When the fighters are delivered to the US, we could remove all the electronics and avionics with upgraded versions to maintain air superiority. A flight school could also import foreign nationals and train them to become pilots and instructors.

An "open to the public" Air Force Base, (One slated for closure due to budget shortfalls) could be created to give incentive rides to paying customers for a modest fee. This would spark increased public support and interest to invest in the program.




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki