Where would you make the budget cuts?

Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2014 07:19 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
the capability of any one is only part of the story, ask the ants. Our planes are so expensive and expensive to operate that any likely opponent should have no trouble outnumbering us 10-1.

F-22s can handle those odds easily. They actually are that good. And if we spent enough money to build enough of them, there should be no problem with them being outnumbered.

hawkeye10 wrote:
Add this to the almost certainty of our aircraft carriers going to the bottom of the sea in the first days

That depends how smart we are in our use of them. If we try to use them to launch short-range fighters against the coast of an advanced enemy, they'll likely be damaged to the point where they can no longer be used as a weapon (not sure if they could actually sink). However, if they are used to interdict trade far from coastal defenses, they should be safe.

Also, we are developing medium-range unmanned bombers for our aircraft carriers. This will give our carriers a "Doolittle raid" type of range, allowing them to bomb an an advanced country while far out of range of their coastal defenses.

hawkeye10 wrote:
and the very uncertainty of our satellites working we are certainly going to have a fight on our hands.

Yes. Many of our satellites are vulnerable to ASATs.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2014 07:22 pm
parados wrote:
When troops aren't on the ground but are in planes or ships, US ground troops aren't going to do much good. Those planes and ships need to make it to the US coastline without any loses in order for you to be correct on this one.

Even if we actually had a modern and up to date Navy and Air Force, that would not be a guarantee that all enemies could never land on our shores. And currently our Navy and Air Force are woefully obsolete.

And the invasion could well come from the north or south. It wouldn't have to be Mexico or Canada that invaded us either. Some aggressor country could invade them to then use as a pathway to get to us.

parados wrote:
The US has 10 carriers and over 50 attack submarines.

The submarines are a comfort. However, carriers will have only situational use against an advanced enemy. Launching medium-range bombers will extend their usefulness, but they really are yesterday's technology.

parados wrote:
Who has more up to date destroyers than the US?

That I know of, France, Italy, the UK, and China.

parados wrote:
The US airforce has 343 A10- Thunderbolts. The F-22 can't begin to match the ability of the A10 when it comes to supporting ground troops.

After all our A-10s are shot down because we didn't have enough F-22s to protect them, we'll have zero A-10s.

It might be a small comfort to know that the enemy planes which will then be providing support to enemy troops will not be as advanced as our A-10s. But we'll still likely wish that we had protected our A-10s with F-22s.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 03:53:39