Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

[Elfdart]

I do. Now if he'd and his entire government would only resign en masse. . . . . .

Exactly what is it you don't like about Obama's government?

Right-wingers are usually annoyed by heads of state who are legitimately elected.

[Stuart]

Well, what are the chances of that the F-22 funding will remain in the final bill?

Not good at this point although it largely depends on what the trade-offs are. Coyote was quite right, most of the discussions rotate around whose constituency gets what rather than who needs what. Usually tacked-on irrelevent ammendments get pole-axed but that might get the F-22 back in (deal; we'll vote to keep the Hate Crime ammendment in if you vote to keep our F-22s in). Or something along those lines.

Upshoot; I doubt if the F-22s will make it but Conference sometimes comes out with real surprises. One thing, once Conference agrees on teh consolidated bill, its very, very unlikely it'll get rejected. It has happened but its rare.

[Connor MacLeod]

Not good at this point although it largely depends on what the trade-offs are. Coyote was quite right, most of the discussions rotate around whose constituency gets what rather than who needs what. Usually tacked-on irrelevent ammendments get pole-axed but that might get the F-22 back in (deal; we'll vote to keep the Hate Crime ammendment in if you vote to keep our F-22s in). Or something along those lines.

Upshoot; I doubt if the F-22s will make it but Conference sometimes comes out with real surprises. One thing, once Conference agrees on teh consolidated bill, its very, very unlikely it'll get rejected. It has happened but its rare.

So alot of the reason why the planes are a big issue and finacne is an issue is because of the nature of the US Military industrial complex(which I am gathering reads as "screwy"), correct?

[Jadeite]

Hopefully it remains stripped out of the bill. As I see it at this point, the MIC needs a good reminder, as do its Congressional whores, on who really controls the military (its civilian leadership, not corporate shills).

[Simon_Jester]

Doesn't rain make the F-22 malfunction, which seems silly but if a bit of weather hurts the plane, it will either have to launch from the USA or be useless in forward bases which are rainy (I'm looking at you Guam).

It's not quite that bad; rain causes maintenance issues but it doesn't sound as if the things dissolve in water or anything like that.

[Jim Raynor]

But the F-22 has never been used in war

Ugh, this bullshit line just needs to stop. There are better arguments and actual logic (right or wrong) to stop F-22 production, such as questioning America's need for such an overpowered military, and economics. But "the F-22 has never fired a shot in Iraq or Afghanistan" and variations of that is nothing but a retarded catchphrase being parroted throughout the media. Never mind that the plane first achieved its Initial Operating Capability in December 2005, years after the Taliban and Saddam were overthrown. At least it makes sense for F-22 opponents to say it, because catchphrases sound convincing to people and are thus good for getting your way. But for journalists to repeat it is just stupid and sloppy research.

This catchphrase is repeated in the latest CNN article, which also calls the F-35 "more modern."

Meanwhile, on Fox News (rofl), an F-22 supporter is fear mongering over the Chinese Su-30 fleet of Doom.

[Batman]

The Tornado had never been used in war until Desert Storm either. What kind of retarded position is that? The Raptor may or may not prove to be moderately superfluous (or, on the contrary, absolutely decisive) in future conflicts, but you can in no way determine its future usefulness (or lack thereof) by the fact that it failed to be around for conflicts where we COULD have determined its usefulness.

[Vympel]

Meanwhile, on Fox News (rofl), an F-22 supporter is fear mongering over the Chinese Su-30 fleet of Doom.

He's an AF general, that's not surprising.

The reference to the Chinese "SU-30MM" was bizarre though. Su-30MKK, Su-30MK2, and their new J-11B (unlicensed and improved Su-27SK copy) actually. And none are in the class of India's Su-30MKI or Russia's Su-35.

[MKSheppard]

And none are in the class of India's Su-30MKI or Russia's Su-35.

Actually, J-11B is coming on line with far better avonics; and the J-10B is estimated to be at least F-16 Block 60 equivalent.

[Steve]

I do. Now if he'd and his entire government would only resign en masse. . . . . .

Exactly what is it you don't like about Obama's government?

Right-wingers are usually annoyed by heads of state who are legitimately elected.

You know, you could wait and see what specific beef Stuart has with the Obama Administration and then jump on him, or is this some compulsive thing where you absolutely must toss out a pre-emptive strawman attack to remind us of your position and beliefs? Yes, we all know you're the left-wing anti-Shep. Your reputation is firmly established. No, this doesn't impress anyone, it's just another "harharhar right-wingers suxx0r" potshot which is about as fresh a thing as, oh, some variation of "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US".

And yes, it does friggin' irritate me, because the remark is such a blatant strawman attack that it should be pounced upon immediately and the attacker subjected to the flaming he/she so richly deserves.

[Vympel]

And none are in the class of India's Su-30MKI or Russia's Su-35.

Actually, J-11B is coming on line with far better avonics; and the J-10B is estimated to be at least F-16 Block 60 equivalent.

Better avionics than what? The Su-35? Bullshit, quite simply- the Su-35 is better in ever possible respect, because it's not just an Su-27SK rip-off, but an all-new aircraft with just a superficial resemblance to the Su-27. The Irbis PESA alone (never mind its advanced IRST) ensures its superiority over China's amateur hour BS with its un-named radar (with which they have virtually no experience) and it's straight-Su-27-copy-IRST.

The Su-30MKI? Maybe, though I've seen no evidence they could suddenly pull a radar equivalent to the Bars out of their bum.

And the J-10B = Block 60? The Chinese don't have any AESA radars, so that's impossible right off the bat.

[Pelranius]

And none are in the class of India's Su-30MKI or Russia's Su-35.

Actually, J-11B is coming on line with far better avonics; and the J-10B is estimated to be at least F-16 Block 60 equivalent.

Better avionics than what? The Su-35? Bullshit, quite simply- the Su-35 is better in ever possible respect, because it's not just an Su-27SK rip-off, but an all-new aircraft with just a superficial resemblance to the Su-27. The Irbis PESA alone (never mind its advanced IRST) ensures its superiority over China's amateur hour BS with its un-named radar (with which they have virtually no experience) and it's straight-Su-27-copy-IRST.

The Su-30MKI? Maybe, though I've seen no evidence they could suddenly pull a radar equivalent to the Bars out of their bum.

And the J-10B = Block 60? The Chinese don't have any AESA radars, so that's impossible right off the bat.

The J-10B is apparently going to be fitted with an AESA, given that there are reports in official Chinese media about researchers developing a brand new radar (and the Chinese already have AESA in the form of the KJ-200, though the fighter scaled radars are still in development). Apparently there are plans to retrofit said radars onto the J-11Bs, though that is in the distant future, if they do get around to it.

Shep might be talking about fly by wire and stuff like HUDs and display screens.

[Vympel]

The J-10B is apparently going to be fitted with an AESA,

And winged monkeys might fly out of my arse, really.

Shep might be talking about fly by wire and stuff like HUDs and display screens.

Which would be odd, since the Su-35's cockpit is one of the best in the world and it has all new fly by wire, which the Russians have way more experience with than the Chinese.

[Pelranius]

The J-10B is apparently going to be fitted with an AESA,

And winged monkeys might fly out of my arse, really.

Shep might be talking about fly by wire and stuff like HUDs and display screens.

Which would be odd, since the Su-35's cockpit is one of the best in the world and it has all new fly by wire, which the Russians have way more experience with than the Chinese.

Seriously, given that the Chinese do have AESA radars already in the form of the KJ-200 (and apparently the KJ-2000 and the system on the 052C destroyer), the next logical step is to produce one suitable for fighters.

There's also a CCTV report that the J-10 is equipped with a phased array radar*. That would presumably be AESA given the relative lack of work that the Chinese have done on passive phased array equipment recently.

*http://space.tv.cctv.com/video/VIDE1244972209675888 The video acts funny sometimes.

[Elfdart]

You know, you could wait and see what specific beef Stuart has with the Obama Administration and then jump on him, or is this some compulsive thing where you absolutely must toss out a pre-emptive strawman attack to remind us of your position and beliefs?

Eh.

Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we all know you're the left-wing anti-Shep. Your reputation is firmly established. No, this doesn't impress anyone, it's just another "harharhar right-wingers suxx0r" potshot which is about as fresh a thing as, oh, some variation of "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US".

If you say so.

And yes, it does friggin' irritate me,

Good. I think it's hilarious that what is arguably my mildest jab ever caused you to get your panties in such a wad. I don't see Stuart complaining -oh that's right: he's not a blubbering vagina like you are. Have you ever considered Extra-Strength Pamprin?

because the remark is such a blatant strawman attack that it should be pounced upon immediately and the attacker subjected to the flaming he/she so richly deserves.

Be my guest. You're doing such a great job so far.

[Steve]

Eh.

Go fuck yourself.

*yawn*

If you say so.

*another yawn*

Good. I think it's hilarious that what is arguably my mildest jab ever caused you to get your panties in such a wad. I don't see Stuart complaining -oh that's right: he's not a blubbering vagina like you are. Have you ever considered Extra-Strength Pamprin?

The point isn't how mild or strong it was, it was how petty and frankly how much of a strawman it was. I mean, seriously, can't you do any fucking better? "Oh, he's a right-winger, they hate legitimately-elected leaders", come on.

If you'd wanted to directly confront Stuart about his remark, fine. But instead you throw up a petty, pissant little strawman that's a fucking eyesore in the thread. Didn't you have anything better to do? An argument to make maybe, instead of "lol right-wingers suck"?

Be my guest. You're doing such a great job so far.

Seriously, SDN's got debating standards, right? Stuff like "no strawman attacks"?

Or do the rules not apply to you?

Seriously, that's what irritated me and led me to speak out. Stuart says something a bit harsh-sounding and extreme, I grant you that. Someone asks him, politely, why he feels that way. You come in and.... boom. Strawman. After all, he's just another "right-winger", his opinions can't be reasonable or open to consideration can they? Nah, he's just another one of those evil rightists who hate democracy and legitimate government.

Maybe it is a rather mild jab for me to give a reaction over. It just happened to be the one thing that caught my eye and lodged itself like a splinter in my mind due to the sheer pettiness of the whole damned thing.

Do you see where I'm coming from? It's not the content that irritated me, it was the fact you wrote that reply in the first place instead of something, y'know, more constructive or inquisitive.



Edit: I apologize to the other posters, this is getting off-topic. I've made my point, I believe, so I'm dropping this discussion and leaving the thread to persons more knowledgeable in the topic matter.

[Steve]

I've found I was wrong about strawman attacks being explicitly forbidden. I concede on that point.

[Count Chocula]

Blah blah blah my usual line without any cogitation this time, unlike some threads where I actually think before I post productively.

Seriously, that's what irritated me and led me to speak out. Stuart says something a bit harsh-sounding and extreme, I grant you that. Someone asks him, politely, why he feels that way. You come in and.... boom. Strawman. After all, he's just another "right-winger", his opinions can't be reasonable or open to consideration can they? Nah, he's just another one of those evil rightists who hate democracy and legitimate government.

Yes I'm side tracking the thread but seriously, 'Dart, couldn't you have done a little bit better than that? You have forgotten the face of your father that Stuart has spent, as far as I can tell, his entire professional career defending the United States in accordance with the wishes of his government; he probably has a much better perspective on the workings and effectiveness of the various civilian administrations, especially with regard to military affairs, than we do. And, yes, I happen to agree with him which is probably no surprise.

OK, attempting to get back on topic: Gates has made his big stand against the F-22, and F-22 specific arguments have been made at length in this thread. HOWever, I personally think the cancellation and effective end-of-life of the F-22 production line is a big mistake. The F-22's supercruise ability is a huge advantage over the F-35 (which won't actually be fielded for several more years), and the precision of the USAF's guided weapons makes the SDB an effective COIN ordnance load vs. the F-35's JDAMs. The F-22's higher speed means a higher number of sorties per day, another advantage for the -22. If the US has air superiority, well then the -22 can use its wing pylons to carry more bombs and be even more effective, dropping 2 or 3 times its standard bomb load per sortie. It's a plane that can use its speed and stealth to establish air superiority, then discard stealth to put a targeted hurtin' on ground pounders, faster and more effectively than the F-35. The precedent is pretty fuckin' clear, too: the F-4 was designed as a Navy fleet defender, armed exclusively with AAMs. What did AF and follow-on models have (-C, -D, -E)? Ground attack capability. The F-16 was designed as a lightweight dogfighter. What role did it also get and perform? Yep, ground attack. Ditto the F-15. Damn, now that I think about it, the F-104, at the time the fastest interceptor in the world (and able to supercruise in the -104A models IIRC) was turned into a bomber.

You see, that's one great advantage of being able to build the most technically capable fighters in the world...while they may have been designed for one mission, their sheer aeronautical badassery is so overwhelming that they can also do ground attack, radar defense suppression, or even high-speed recon. That kick-ass fighter, instead of "Risking Today's Troops," can actually save troops by being able to get on scene, drop precision bombs, then hustle back to base and rearm faster than any other aircraft in the world. If anything, we should have budgeted for 70 more, not 7.

And it's not dead yet. The Senate killed it, but the House hasn't yet, and there's no reconciliation bill at this time. My fingers are crossed for its continued production.

[Darth Wong]

Right-wingers are usually annoyed by heads of state who are legitimately elected.

You know, you could wait and see what specific beef Stuart has with the Obama Administration and then jump on him, or is this some compulsive thing where you absolutely must toss out a pre-emptive strawman attack to remind us of your position and beliefs? Yes, we all know you're the left-wing anti-Shep. Your reputation is firmly established. No, this doesn't impress anyone, it's just another "harharhar right-wingers suxx0r" potshot which is about as fresh a thing as, oh, some variation of "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US".

And yes, it does friggin' irritate me, because the remark is such a blatant strawman attack that it should be pounced upon immediately and the attacker subjected to the flaming he/she so richly deserves.

What are you, a fucking retard? That was obviously a mere snark comment, not an actual serious attempt to describe what he believes to be Stuart's reasoning.

Same goes for Chocula. What kind of fucking idiot could read a line like that and think "Oh man, Elfdart is clearly attempting to make a completely serious statement about Stuart's reasoning, so I should go after him for the strawman fallacy?"

[Steve]

Given the lack of smilies and Elfdart's reputation I didn't see it as such. Frankly, it was an itch I scratched when I probably shouldn't have.

Again, I apologize for getting the thread off-topic.

[Darth Wong]

It was an itch I scratched, I probably shouldn't have.

It was more than that. It was arguably an example of a vendetta: you going after someone because you personally dislike him, and trying to trump up these ridiculous charges of him violating board rules by engaging in a bit of obvious snark. Frankly, if anyone needs to worry about the rules in this little dust-up, it's you, not him.

[Steve]

It was an itch I scratched, I probably shouldn't have.

It was more than that. It was arguably an example of a vendetta: you going after someone because you personally dislike him, and trying to trump up these ridiculous charges of him violating board rules by engaging in a bit of obvious snark. Frankly, if anyone needs to worry about the rules in this little dust-up, it's you, not him.

I conceded the point on the rules, I forgot the scope of the debating rules.

As for the vendetta rule, I've never interacted with Elfdart to any significant degree I can recall, certainly not enough to have a vendetta against him. It really was just a case of his remark tweaking me the wrong way and prompting me to react.

[Count Chocula]

Same goes for Chocula. What kind of fucking idiot could read a line like that and think "Oh man, Elfdart is clearly attempting to make a completely serious statement about Stuart's reasoning, so I should go after him for the strawman fallacy?"

I didn't think he was serious, but in my defense I had 'Nam flashbacks to every Elfdart/Shep exchange and just snapped. Okay, bad defense; I concede. Hey, at least the rest of my post was on topic...

[Simon_Jester]

Yes I'm side tracking the thread but seriously, 'Dart, couldn't you have done a little bit better than that? You have forgotten the face of your father that Stuart has spent, as far as I can tell, his entire professional career defending the United States in accordance with the wishes of his government; he probably has a much better perspective on the workings and effectiveness of the various civilian administrations, especially with regard to military affairs, than we do. And, yes, I happen to agree with him which is probably no surprise.

If he's right, he can explain why he's right. So far, I'm only convinced enough to think that the decision to stop the F-22 production line is iffy, not that it's idiotic or that the Obama Administration should resign.

And it's not dead yet. The Senate killed it, but the House hasn't yet, and there's no reconciliation bill at this time. My fingers are crossed for its continued production.

Does production actually end this year?

[Starglider]

Everything matters, but stealth is almost a prerequisite for survival against modern SAMs unless a nation invests very heavily in electronic warfare equipment.

Well that should be ideal for all the isolationists in this thread (Darth Wong etc) who only want aircraft to be usable defensively. The Typhoon is fine for intercepting enemy strike aircraft and attacking invading armor columns (unsurprisingly, since it's a cold war design originally pitted against the invading Soviet horde).

Back in reality, European nations seem to be going down the UAV route for air defense suppression, which does make a lot of sense. Stealth platforms are extremely expensive, particularly manned ones, and it's still a risky mission, compared to other fighter roles. Whereas if you send UAVs after them, the enemy may well be faced with the dilemma that the attacking UAVs cost less than their heavy air defence missiles, and UAVs are similarly expendable.

Since most Eurofighter users haven't bothered to do this, and most potential customers aren't interested in doing this it leaves the aircraft in a very unhappy place when faced with advanced SAMs.

Avionics are much easier to upgrade than airframes, and the Eurofighter has an unusually active avionics upgrade program (e.g. the ongoing AESA radar development).