9
   

End of social security in 2016

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2016 04:55 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Your 2012 had to deal with the sequester, which is over. The Air Force has moved on.

That would be nice if it were true, but I am not convinced that it is.


Blickers wrote:
The F-22s are being supplemented with retrofit, improved F-15s, until the F-35 becomes available.

Does this mean that plans are to retire the F-15s when the F-35 comes? If so, then we are still on track for disaster.

The F-35 is a ground attack plane. It will not be able to fill in the gaps in F-22 coverage all by itself. There is no way that F-35s will perform air superiority in an area where there are no F-22s or F-15s to back them up.


Blickers wrote:
Unclear is whether those F-16s are indeed going to be retired, since your reference for that is from 2012 and it basically was an Air Force guy grumbling about what he figures they'll have to do if the Air Force doesn't get what it wants-which is the usual posturing that occurs on these expensive weapons systems.

The only way the Air Force will be able to buy F-35s AND keep the older fighters is if they get a boost in spending so they can afford to do both.

I haven't heard about any such boost in spending. I'm only hearing the Left saying they need to get even less than the spending levels that are leading to the current disaster.


Blickers wrote:
The above article is from less than a year ago. It paints a different picture altogether.

That article looks like Boeing promoting a package that they hope the Air Force will buy, not necessarily a package that the Air Force has agreed to buy.

But even if the Air Force buys this package, the F-15c will only be able to fill in gaps in F-22 coverage if we keep flying them after we get the F-35.

If this package is to just keep the F-15c until we get the F-35, then we're still on track for big trouble.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2016 04:57 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
It's too bad that the US has never been capable of producing anything with our lack of any industrial capacity. It's also too bad that we spend 5 times what any other country spends on their military but they have so many more planes than we do. Drunk

It is indeed too bad. It happens because the Left blocks us from using our industrial capacity to build the weapons that our military needs to survive on the battlefield.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Jun, 2016 04:58 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Ah.. that same major power that has only 1/3 of our airforce

I dispute this, for all the reasons that I've repeatedly and endlessly stated already.


parados wrote:
and would be required to defend their own territory from our ship based planes.

If our carriers got close enough to a major power to launch our current planes, they would all be heavily damaged by advanced anti-ship missiles that we currently have little defenses for.


parados wrote:
You aren't very good at war games, are you?

About a billion times better at them than you are.
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/25/2019 at 10:31:17