Re: The Fighter Dilemma

hcobb wrote:
On Feb 17, 5:28 am, Tiger <Lana_sa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

All this assumes we will configure the Force to fight big scale wars
again? Politics & $$$ aside, The DOD has figure out who they are going
to fight in the next 20-25 years. Big conventional powers or more small
scale regional conflicts & peacekeeping deals? The F-22 is great for
dealing with Migs and Su's but not real helpful in cleaning Tsunamis or
other low tech duties.


We've already got a force that deals with three block and smaller wars
and MOOTW contingencies.

After a tsunami the USAF isn't the best bet for quick relief as the
local airfields are going to be very crowded and most of the goods
will arrive by ship.

If we're going to have an Air Force for the next 500 years, it'll be
because the leaders of that force sit down to figure out what it is
that they do and then sell that message to the rest of the DOD, the
Congress and the Executive.

"We're the force that flies the most boring version of the JSF" will
not cut it.

Perhaps something more like "The eye in the sky that tracks the
enemies of the nation and the death that comes to them from above".

-HJC

In 500 years I would hope We've moved on to StarFleet & Photon torpedos.

The JSF has too many backers (USN, USMC, Fleet air Arm, Austraila's) to set it back too far in development. With the political winds blowing the Dems way & continued House & Senate control, The USAF would have to do a hell of a sales job? On top of that, The Army & Marines need a ton of $$$ to replace war used equipment & people. In the end something has got to give? No new Tankers? No C-5 upgrades, Keep the F-16's longer, Cuts in the V-22 for the Air force, Base closures? This is a Dilemma....

.

Relevant Pages
Loading