Tuesday, April 19, 2005


WaPo debating (sort of) the new F-22 fighter jet.

The arguments almost lead one to believe that this jet should be stopped now rather than get the technological jump now. They site the bugginess of the new system and maintenance issues primarily. Not really valid arguments for a brand new system.

Then you get interesting quotes like this:
"The Air Force's real strength no longer is the airplanes. The good old days of two incredibly maneuverable planes dogfighting are over and have been overtaken by data links, computers and satellites," said Richard L. Aboulafia, aviation analyst for Teal Group Corp., a research firm. Most potential enemies, including China, don't have tankers, which can refuel fighters in mid-flight, or Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) planes that can detect cruise missiles or enemy fighters, he said.
"The Air Force's real strength no longer is the airplanes." WTF? And then the statement about dogfights is just proving this guy has no concept of history. Some very similar words were said in the times around the Korean war when jets first hit the battle zone in large numbers. Guess what the did a lot of, Dogfights. As for his point on China not having tankers, what difference does that make? Is he trying to make us believe that there is no chance that we would fight against their style of fighters over the enemies own ground? Must be nice having that level of fore knowledge.

If they are so expensive, slow down the roll out while doing the rework to fix problems. That is justified. But letting the obvious leap in technology falter isn't very smart.

And for some reason the commentators make you think that you only have a single choice on how the money is used. Bombers or fighters. Army or Air Force. Well, maybe someone should wake up and look at history. When the US falls behind militarily, sooner or later the country pays for that mistake with lives.

1 comment:

Granted said...

Oh this is the same kind of crap comment that says we won't need to send in ground troops because we have such complete air superiority. It's garbage.

Now, if you want to argue that the dog fighting that occurs in the future will be done with a minimal loss of human life, I'll get behind that one. Why? Because the unmanned drones are getting more and more sophisticated and indications are, operators will replace pilots in a lot of the air missions.