Comments on: Fighter Gap ‘Shrinks’ To 100 Planes

By: G. Beadle

G. Beadle — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:15:15 +0000

The difference in Iraq is that we have no CLEAR distinction between civilian and enemy. This can be compared to Vietnam, with guerilla tactics and an invisible enemy. Fighting a war against a regular army is, in comparison, much easier. In Iraq, everyone owns at least one rifle, so we can’t kill anyone who is armed. And the insurgents take every advantage they have. Plus, fighting in urban terrain while doing your best to maintain infrastructure and try to keep civilians alive and happy is incredibly difficult.

By: Jim Drozdowski

Jim Drozdowski — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:15:19 +0000

The Sukhoi 50 is flying already and India is buying.

By: Don T

Don T — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:32:27 +0000

To fight the next big war against a currently forseeable enemy, the USA would have to borrow the money from said enemy in order to fight them. That is the new world paradigm. We can not afford to unilaterally fight all the world’s conflicts or, even those which many would like to commit to today.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:15:25 +0000

yea, we can do that or wait until they blow our Ass back to the stone age. :} No Big Deal, been there before.
you have a good day. :}

By: robertro2

robertro2 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:21:55 +0000

MAY BE WE CAN WAIT FOR A “GREEN PLANE“THEN EVERY ONE WILL FEEL GOOD.….THIS GOVT LEADERS THAT ARE IN NOW WILL PUT THIS NAVY BACK TO USING SAILS .……

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:15:56 +0000

Your Right Thunder350, its about time to retired the old bird, she did her Service. lets get some of that money and get something better. At last someone agree’s.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:10:29 +0000

well,TMB we could have a hunder B-52, on the other hand they only need a couple of Fast Mover’s to knock down the slow Bombers. they don’t have any Gun’s, they just too old and slow. sure it carry’s more bombs’s. And it did do its share in Vietnam, they Kick ASS. I remember, you could hear them from a long way. But! we do need a better Bomber. theres alot of Tankers out there.

By: William Hayes

William Hayes — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:31:24 +0000

The F-35 Air Force version should be put into production, now and continue to work on other versions. I think that the concept of a Joint Fighter has turned into a joke. We need to be able to fight a full scale war and have planes that we can get into the battle. I think that the F-35 is too big and too expensive to meet
affordable needs. Not that the F-35 isn’t a great plane but if it bankrupts the country in the process or we don’t build it because it costs too much.

By: Thunder350

Thunder350 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:14:56 +0000

While most people agree its time to replace the B-52. Congress keeps cutting funding for the “Next Generation Bomber”. :(

By: TMB

TMB — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:01:16 +0000

Richard, you are aware that the B-52 can carry more bombs than an F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35 combined right? In the grand scheme of things, we spend pennies keeping the B-52 fleet in the air. Do you honestly think less than 100 B-52s are bankrupting the Air Force? Along with a ridiculously huge payload, the B-52 has enough fuel to orbit a battlefield all freakin day waiting for missions. As for lasting 20 minutes in the air, the B-52 flies high enough to avoid most anti-air systems, survived almost 40 years of cold war service and participated in Vietnam, Desert Storm, Allied Force, Desert Fox, OEF, OIF and is still going strong.

By: foxtrot 2

foxtrot 2 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:58:51 +0000

Im with Byron. The chinese have been around for 10,000 years. They know how to destroy us and thats to bankrupt us.

By: Richard Martinez

Richard Martinez — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:47:01 +0000

with al the money were spending on the OLD B-52, is old and Slow.They won’t last Twenty minutes in the Air.
If were running out of money its cause this old Airplane, its not worth it. Sure it can deliver, Well so can the Navy
they always off shore somewhere and they to can do the job, and have better chances. The B-52 was a good A/C at one time, lets Retired it. And get something better. We have plenty of A/C , the F-15 , F-16, F-18, F-22.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:55:56 +0000

First off put your ass on the line out there in the enemy sights and say, hey lets wait on an over budget, under performing plane that in no way will match the enemy of our future. GM, Ford and Chrysler tried to use the same platforms in the 1970’s to cheaply manufacture their line of automobiles and we all watched the rest of the word auto manufacturers kicked their ASS!!

By: Foxtrot 2

Foxtrot 2 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:57:07 +0000

So whose the enemy here? There is few/none. Why do we need the F-35 when we have UAV’s doing all the bombing?

We need to grow up and quit bankrupting the USofA by buying these toys.

It seems we are like an aircraft carrier. It takes us 20 years to get turned around.

By: Foxtrot 2

Foxtrot 2 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:57:07 +0000

So whose the enemy here? There is few/none. Why do we need the F-35 when we have UAV’s doing all the bombing?

We need to grow up and quit bankrupting the USofA by buying these toys.

It seems we are like an aircraft carrier. It takes us 20 years to get turned around.

By: captchas

captchas — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:46:52 +0000

seems more like pork barrel spending by some for their own states, and total lack for the safty of our men and women on the ground in the war zones.

By: Thunder350

Thunder350 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:46:28 +0000

Having a stealth CAS in a future war is more important than having one that can be seen and shot down on its way to the target.

Going by your logic of “Our stupidity on relying on technology will always end up costing more lives in the long run”.

I guess we would save lives by going back to forging swords, and making bows and arrows? Not sure how we’d take out a enemy fighter, bomber, tanks, or infantry with machine guns. But hey, you said we don’t need technology to beat them. So I guess we can do what the Ewok’s did against the Galactic Empire. That’ll save lives!

By: @7thwave

@7thwave — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:16:46 +0000

projo66…if the F35 is perfect for marine cas,then why don’t they just stick with the harrier? F35 for cas? Bull pucky. The harrier has the SAME capabilities as the F35! Why not just stick with what the jar heads already have?
In a future war,the USA will be defeated. Our stupidity on relying on technology will always end up costing more lives in the long run. And with the F35 lack of maneuverability, range, payload, and over reliance on electronics that and do fail when a pilot least expects it will surely end up being called this next generations flying coffin.

By: William C.

William C. — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:05:29 +0000

Our military should prepare and be equipped to deal with any potential threat, that included the Soviet Union during the Cold War and should include countries like China today, even when we have good relations with them. One of our wiser presidents once said “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” That policy remains just as true today as it has for the past century.

There is no massive conspiracy behind think tanks like RAND Corporation. Trying to blame every problem in modern America on such a scapegoat is ridiculous. Problems in the world of military procurement are due to mismanagement, political interference, and plenty of other factors. Not some Byzantine conspiracy by a non-profit think tank.

There is no longer a middle class in the United States? Me and all of the other middle class people I know must have missed that. The money spent on equipping our military is spent wisely despite the problems of waste and mismanagement, the money being wasted on countless broken social programs is a different matter however…

How about we continue to maintain a world class military and supply them with new equipment for the 21st century? How about we don’t spend trillions on broken “stimulus” packages and try other means to fix the economy?

Despite what you say those “big-ticket” items do win wars. Would you have had us defeat the Iraqi Army in 1991 with MRAPs and light COIN turboprop aircraft? What if we do go to war with North Korea or Iran a few years from now? How are we going to get men to the battlefield without “big ticket” aircraft and ships?

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:41:37 +0000

Good Evening Duke 1,

I’m with you pal. We have been planning for WW III since 1945, and it always been in the American mind, and have pi**ed away $ trillions and have got very little in return.

The ones that made the money of course are the defense contractors and since 1959 with the Rand Corp. that peculiar institution of winger think tanks that have added zero value to any defense project but have pocketed hundreds of billions in contracts to the Government and fees to to contractors that is turned around and added to the cost of contracts.

We use to have a middle class in the United States, but it’s gone, all the wealth has been spent on needless and useless big ticket defense projects.

I think it’s time to put some of that money back into the pockets of the middle class. How about going back to a time when the wife didn’t have to work and could stay home and raise the kids, it was that way once. You could put money in the bank and it earned 5% interest. The middle class could send their children to college with out mortgaging away their own retirement. Now they can send their kids to the military and they can fight in meaningless wars.

The threat to the United States like all major powers in history doesn’t come for the out side, but from with in. When the US does collapse as it will in time, hopefully a few hundred years away, it won’t be from a China, it will be from Main Street, USA.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner