I agree. Except if Taiwan were to declare independence wherein we are bound by law to defend Taiwan. To prevent that, we encourage every leader they elect to maintain the status quo and strongly discourage them from claiming independence.

xxx

As for F-22, had the previous admin fought for it, and not kicked it down the road, it most likely could have been secured at 381 for a reasonble cost.

Any number of price quotes today make it confusing to know what the ball park figure is per unit cost. And there must be a point where the cost is too much.

I wonder if building a system around updated B1/AWG9/AIM54 might be worth looking into to ensure air dominance is maintained. If B1 #‘s are treaty restricted, redesignate to B to F.

You mean Veteran Administration benefits, Medicare and Medicaid that my Father ( USAF veteran) depended on, my brothers (US Army and US Navy Veterans) depended on, Child Healthcare Improvement Plan that 100s of thousands of children depend on, the paid vacation, the 5 day workweek, the 8 hour work day, the benefits that supplement wounded veterans care and that Walter Reed and the Brooke Army Hospital depend on are all just junk? And instead we should purchase an aircraft that even the assembly line managers say is unmaintainable is somehow a great investment?

Look, this isn’t a right-left issue. It’s an issue about whether taxpayer funds should be spent on a weapon that’s not worth the investment. There is nothing wrong or unpatriotic about not wanting to buy a weapon that may fail us ultimately because it’s too expensive. It’s an issue about common sense.

I wish people on your side of the aisle could engage in a healthy debate without resorting to ideological, nonsensical smears.

Most of the money out of every dollar we are taxed goes to weaponry. That said, it make sense to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire about ROI rather than let them game the system.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

SPEND MORE MONEY ON IT!

The only government entity that works and is worth our tax dollars is the military.

We are losing lives everyday on the ground and it’s going to increase due to the nature of the battle and terrain. This thing is just starting people!

AFPAK’s priority is to control the nukes
and to bring the population as close as we can get to the beginning times when we established a republic.

[Sometimes I wonder if people who worry so much about a political position on a weapon system, ever even think of those who live the rest of their life dealing with the resultant realities of defending our country by serving it!]

Invest in the lives of the one’s who are true citizen’s of the republic, since civilians could care less about sacrifice and consider anyone who does it as a fool. I care more about the children and spouses of the fallen and injured than I do about some idiot’s favorite radio clown! If you want to see people talk about the real cost of defending this country, draft their sorry asses and make men and women out of them. This is the time for men and women to step up-make it so!

Tribal concepts integrated to learn how a democratic state can help all of the tribes live a better life. OK, that is a big ticket price to bring 400AD up to 1776AD, but it is better than being attacked for the next couple of centuries by these beastie boys.

This is the question to ask. Look at all the combat, not just a part of it.

I still think we have to learn to say no to equipment that is so expensive it can’t be made in large enough numbers. But then, in my lifetime, I have seen very few weapon systems killed, no matter how badly they perform or how hard it is to maintain them. The F-22 certainly fits both of those categories.

China is by far our largest trading partner, and they own slightly less than 40% of our Treasury Bonds, and their currency is highly tied in with ours, the US and China are fairly unlikely to get into a shooting war. A trade war, perhaps.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

If I may, further let me opine that USAF pilot risk of fighting the short air supremacy war with the F-35 vs. the F-22 probably would result in hypothetical additional ENTIRE WAR loss of pilot life equalling about two day’s loss of life to ground Soldiers/Marines in current conflicts since 2001..and of course would probably be matched by Navy/Marine pilot lives saved flying F-35 instead of earlier F/A-18.

I’ll add that going into any long air-ground conflict with the F-35 instead of the F-22 for air-to-ground employment is more likely to save dozens of ground troops PER MONTH OVER YEARS.

Let me further offer a cogent question offered by another reporter that I paraphrase…

Which is more important and critical to our joint national defense: an hour of F-22 flight or the salary of one additional Army/Marine squad leader for a year????????

–Gen. John Corley, Commander ACC
June 9 letter to Sen. Chambliss
________
Senator Saxby Chambliss: Under the force planning construct, where we assume that 183 is going to be the number, what is the level of risk that we are taking at 183? Is it low? Is it moderate? Or is it high risk?
General Norton A. Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff: I would characterize it as moderate to high, sir.
–Senate Armed Services Committee, May 21, 2009
________
Chambliss: Your chief of staff has stated that the requirement is 243 and he has characterized the risk of only 187 F-22s as medium to high. Do either of you disagree with that assessment by General Schwartz?
Major General Mark Gibson, Director of Operations and Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, Plans and Requirements, Department of the Air Force: Sir, of course I would agree with the comment of my chief. General Shackelford addressed earlier that the term now is “higher risk,” especially when one looks at sustainment of the fleet with those lower numbers. But I think his recent terminology was in the light of today’s constrained resources. It was an affordable solution.
–Hearing of the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, June9, 2009
________
Gen. Richard Hawley (USAF, Ret): The F-22 recommendation rests on an assertion that we cannot afford to equip our airmen, on whom we rely to gain and maintain air superiority, with the best weapons that our defense industrial base has developed. Rather, we, and they, are asked to accept the risk of sending them into the fight with weapons designed for an entirely different mission.
–Hearing of the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, April 30, 2009

McCain has lost it when he is on the SMS side as levin.
Yes unfortunately I was on the MI McCain team.