Pumping up the numbers

[Administrator]

It was after the phone call from their boss, the secretary of defense, that the two most senior leaders of the Air Force clarified their service’s position.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/04/3392707

[ITC76]

Something I've yet to see anyone propose is the Rhino (AKA Super Hornet) as an alternative to some of the F-22s the Air Force wants to buy. I agree that we need some F-22s to maintain air superiority against any potential foe, but if there's such a dire need to replace ageing F-15s, why not consider the relatively less expensive solution of replacing them with Rhinos? Why hold out for the F-22, other than for purely political purposes? Besides, might an Air Force contract for Rhinos help assuage Boeing's hurt feelings for losing the tanker contract?

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by ITC76

Something I've yet to see anyone propose is the Rhino (AKA Super Hornet) as an alternative to some of the F-22s the Air Force wants to buy. I agree that we need some F-22s to maintain air superiority against any potential foe, but if there's such a dire need to replace ageing F-15s, why not consider the relatively less expensive solution of replacing them with Rhinos? Why hold out for the F-22, other than for purely political purposes? Besides, might an Air Force contract for Rhinos help assuage Boeing's hurt feelings for losing the tanker contract?

Since what you are actually looking at is "Ground Support Fighters", why go all the way up to the F-18E? The P-38 (on a "cost per delivered pound of ordnance" basis) meets the requirements better.

Not only that, but on a "maintenance hour/flying hour" basis it does even better.

On top of that, on a "'can be fixed here' vs 'has to go back to the factory to be fixed'" basis it does even better than that.

[banjobailey]

What strikes me most about this article is how misbegotten the ideas about our national security may be. For a person like myself, who has been reading and learning about what is happening in China right now, I must say that I have little confidence in China's motivation to attack America.
Their whole emphases seems to be on economic development and making money. They have now succeeded in indebting us to the tune of many billions and maybe trillions. Therein lies their "victory" over us. We owe them. Big Time.
I understand that the "military" procurement people have every interest in seeing "enemies" everywhere. And, to a certain extent, they should and that is their job. However, there comes a point when creating national security tools to protect us against enemies who are conjured up out of a fevered imagination about what the future may hold without taking into consideration anything other than military solutions, well, that is imbalanced.
The military/industrial complex is indeed upon us.

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by banjobailey

What strikes me most about this article is how misbegotten the ideas about our national security may be. For a person like myself, who has been reading and learning about what is happening in China right now, I must say that I have little confidence in China's motivation to attack America.

America (read as "the government of the United States of America") needs, and has always needed, "enemies". Those "enemies" need not be "guilty" of doing anything more that simply not doing what the government of the United States of America tells them to do - but that is totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by banjobailey

Their whole emphases seems to be on economic development and making money. They have now succeeded in indebting us to the tune of many billions and maybe trillions. Therein lies their "victory" over us. We owe them. Big Time.

The Chinese appear to be doing better with Khrushchev's "We will bury you." than the Russians did.

On the other hand, when you consider the entire quote "Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас похороним." (translated as "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you") it takes on a whole different meaning.

Originally Posted by banjobailey

I understand that the "military" procurement people have every interest in seeing "enemies" everywhere. And, to a certain extent, they should and that is their job. However, there comes a point when creating national security tools to protect us against enemies who are conjured up out of a fevered imagination about what the future may hold without taking into consideration anything other than military solutions, well, that is imbalanced.

You are taking a stand against the very foundation of much of America's wealth and almost the whole of the government of the United States of America's foreign policy.