WT Forums

ViperTTB:

I'm sure production of the Raptor will trickle on after the first batch, and spending caps can be adjusted and removed as time, money, and politics permits. The issue I was getting at regarding a base attack is, that with small numbers deployed overseas, you end up with an "all your eggs in one basket" situation. Granted, there may be hardened shelters there, and granted, your small numbers may be divided into even smaller numbers between nearby bases, but the problem remains, shelters aren't infallable, runways can be desetroyed and mined, and if you start losing some of the precious aircraft, you can't replace them fast enough, even if you are trying to fly them in from CONUS or wherever else.

A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down...

<<<
It's all in your point of view. The Air Force version would be "if deep water isn't available close enough to the targets or if there isn't enough time to move an aircraft carrier battle group, then the F-22 will have to handle it alone, not the F-35".
>>>

I'm not sure what you mean. The carrier can access most of the world. In the war against Afghanistan the carrier supplied the tactical fighters in the early days because of basing issues. Usually land basing is a bigger issue than carrier access.

As far as the Navy abandoning air superiorty, that is interesting. I guess it is true and reflected in its Super Hornet decision.

I understand your arguement. You think the F/A-22 is needed in large numbers because of its air dominance. I agree about the need for some F/A-22 for air dominance but probably don't think we need as many as you think.

Question: In your opinion how many F/A-22 PMAI(not total buy; 64% of total buy) should be procured?

I like the 224 buy or 150 PMAI planned for now.

Horrido:

With the war in Iraq expensive as hell, maybe not.

"I agree with you about the F-35. It's optimized for air-to-ground but its air-to-air will be very capable, and in my view it should replace most of the F-15's, all the F-16's, and all the A-10's."

The F-35 cannot do the A-10's job. Period, end of story.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"I agree with you about the F-35. It's optimized for air-to-ground but its air-to-air will be very capable, and in my view it should replace most of the F-15's, all the F-16's, and all the A-10's."

The F-35 cannot do the A-10's job. Period, end of story.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

However the F-35 may shine the A-10's shoes from time to time....

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

M21:

Last I heard the A-10 fleet is going to upgraded and remain in service past 2020

Horrido, IF somebody attacks one of our airbases with anything other than a stealthy long range cruise missle, then all our toys have failed. Our defences dropped the ball, our AWACS missed the boat and our CAPs were asleep at the switch. Yeah it CAN happen (Pearl Harbor of course instantly jumps to mind) but IF it did then we would have all sorts of other problems regarding our overall preparedness.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

And in Japan or South Korea, this is quite possible if we aren't being careful and alert for such an attack.

A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down...

"Last I heard the A-10 fleet is going to upgraded and remain in service past 2020"

2028, but that is subject to change without notice.


"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."