WT Forums

I'm quoting from this morning's editorial titled "Misspending Military Dollars":

The biggest cuts should come in the three advanced-tactical and Joint Strike Fighter aircraft: the Air Force's F-22, the Navy's F-18 and the shared F-35. The Pentagon plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades on these planes, which are designed to replace older models that are already superior to anything any other country can put in the air. They would be ideal for dogfights against the equally futuristic MIG's the Soviet Union might be building if it still existed. But in real places like Afghanistan and Iraq, they have serious disadvantages. Unlike helicopters, they cannot hover over battlefields. Unlike unpiloted drones, they place fliers' lives at risk. They have restricted flying ranges and require expensive airborne tankers for refueling.

The American people are ill served by this passivity. The strong defense everybody wants will not come from throwing ever larger sums into the wrong weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/05/opinion/05THU1.html

Edited by - viperttb on Feb 05 2004 11:13 AM

"The Pentagon plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two decades on these planes, which are designed to replace older models that are already superior to anything any other country can put in the air. They would be ideal for dogfights against the equally futuristic MIG's the Soviet Union might be building if it still existed."

It's all a matter of misunderstanding. They're reporters, and are totally ignorant to the reality of the situation.

Apparently they've never heard of the SU-30 either...

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

They are liberal, editorialists and ideologues, and dangerous ones if they ever get to run the defense department

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>They have restricted flying ranges and require expensive airborne tankers for refueling. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, the fighters are there to provide air superiority, so that the tankers can fly around without turning into a giant ball of fire. But the tankers are only there to keep the fighters from turning into lawn-darts... So let's call the whole thing off and all go home! <img src=newicons/Whatever_anim.gif border=0 align=middle>

You know, as much as I'd rather see that money in the form of a new version of the KC-135, I've heard enough stories already about how much we (being tankers) need fighters, even the F-16 (which serves no obvious purpose but to get pissy when they get low on fuel), in the desert. If they were really worried about lives, they wouldn't be trying to send us into combat with marginal equipment.

I sure hope the Democrats don't win jack in the coming election.

It's up to us to make sure they don't Poke.



<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

Its all smoke and mirrors.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !