Should the F-35 be scrapped?

[WildCat]

Btw, while searching for info about the Gripen I discovered it apparently has the ability to scare chickens to death.

 

[theprestige]

Argument from Authority? I think you need to re-read the definition:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

I didn't do any of that. I made an opinionated statement.

So you admit that you're not actually an authority on the subject, and that you actually have no factual or theoretical basis for determining how many F-35s are appropriate?

 

[theprestige]

Argument from Authority? I think you need to re-read the definition:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

I didn't do any of that. I made an opinionated statement.

So you admit that you're not actually an authority on the subject, and that you actually have no factual or theoretical basis for determining how many F-35s are appropriate?

ETA: I mean, sure, you somehow magically know exactly how many F-35s are enough, but when someone calls you on it, suddenly it's just, like, your opinion, man.

Is there anything I should know about, that would encourage me to take your opinion on this issue seriously?

 

[GreyICE]

So you admit that you're not actually an authority on the subject, and that you actually have no factual or theoretical basis for determining how many F-35s are appropriate?

ETA: I mean, sure, you somehow magically know exactly how many F-35s are enough, but when someone calls you on it, suddenly it's just, like, your opinion, man.

Is there anything I should know about, that would encourage me to take your opinion on this issue seriously?

Well one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is about 2,000 more than would be required to defend us from our only neighbors who are in a position to threaten us with airstrikes, Mexico and Canada.

Or one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is probably about 1,900 more than necessary to take out the entire airforce of Iran (whose top two planes, numerically, are the F-4 Phantom II, and the P-47 Thunderbolt (yeah, really). Number 3 goes to the F-5E.

Or I could go on...

 

[Ziggurat]

Well one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is about 2,000 more than would be required to defend us from our only neighbors who are in a position to threaten us with airstrikes, Mexico and Canada.

As if that was our only (or even primary) security concern or possible need for fighter planes.

Or one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is probably about 1,900 more than necessary to take out the entire airforce of Iran

This too is irrelevant. Having only enough forces to take on Iran, or any other rogue state, would be a rather stupid move on our part.

And tell me, how many planes do you think we'd need if we went to war with China over Taiwan? You apparently think you can evaluate our military requirements, surely you can answer this question. And when you answer, don't forget that we can't afford to deploy our entire force to that conflict, so make sure you count the planes which we'd keep available elsewhere.

 

[GreyICE]

As if that was our only (or even primary) security concern or possible need for fighter planes.



This too is irrelevant. Having only enough forces to take on Iran, or any other rogue state, would be a rather stupid move on our part.

And tell me, how many planes do you think we'd need if we went to war with China over Taiwan? You apparently think you can evaluate our military requirements, surely you can answer this question. And when you answer, don't forget that we can't afford to deploy our entire force to that conflict, so make sure you count the planes which we'd keep available elsewhere.

Zero. BAC is busy arguing in another thread why nuclear weapons make such things impossible, and since you're such bosom buddies, I'm sure you'd agree with him.

In any case, economic and military realities have rendered such a conflict... unrealistic. We're preparing for a war we'll never fight.

P.S. There's the question of why we'd want to.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zero. BAC is busy arguing in another thread why nuclear weapons make such things impossible, and since you're such bosom buddies, I'm sure you'd agree with him.

You would be wrong. My interactions with BAC hardly consist of me defending him.

In any case, economic and military realities have rendered such a conflict... unrealistic.

The possibility of war with China over Taiwan is hardly unrealistic. I consider it unlikely, but that's not close to the same thing. And guarding against catastrophic events can be worthwhile even if those events are unlikely.

We're preparing for a war we'll never fight.

Preparing for a war is one of the ways we can help make sure we'll never fight it.

P.S. There's the question of why we'd want to.

First and foremost, because being ready and willing to do so, and making both the capability and will apparent, is one of the best ways to help prevent China from attacking Taiwan.

 

[theprestige]

Well one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is about 2,000 more than would be required to defend us from our only neighbors who are in a position to threaten us with airstrikes, Mexico and Canada.

Or one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is probably about 1,900 more than necessary to take out the entire airforce of Iran (whose top two planes, numerically, are the F-4 Phantom II, and the P-47 Thunderbolt (yeah, really). Number 3 goes to the F-5E.

Or I could go on...

Well, since Mexico, Canada, and Iran are the only other nations in the world besides the United States, I doubt you need to go on. Your entire point is well made already, I should think.

 

[GreyICE]

But why? Why is it necessary to spend billions of dollars on a contingency even you admit is unlikely?

I mean we could equally say that all sorts of worthless preparation makes sure nothing happens, but I don't think the argument that Feng Shui obviously prevents all the demon problems that it would result if you didn't Feng Shui the room very good.

China isn't going to attack Taiwan anymore. 20 years ago? Sure. But now? Nah. Too much to lose, and they've realized nothing to gain.

 

[GreyICE]

Well, since Mexico, Canada, and Iran are the only other nations in the world besides the United States, I doubt you need to go on. Your entire point is well made already, I should think.

Reading is tech. I know sentences longer than ten words are tough. That's why I keep these short. But really. It's worth reading past the first 10.

 

[rwguinn]

Reading is tech. I know sentences longer than ten words are tough. That's why I keep these short. But really. It's worth reading past the first 10.

You should try it, then...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well one could point out that 2,000 new airplanes is about 2,000 more than would be required to defend us from our only neighbors who are in a position to threaten us with airstrikes, Mexico and Canada.

The buffer of two oceans was rendered irrelevant in 1916, no less 1941. Likewise with airspace, not to mention American policy since about 1941 has been to be engaged globally, and to be a power rather than sit at home and watch the other powers play. Once you get that piece, the rest falls into place.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

But why? Why is it necessary to spend billions of dollars on a contingency even you admit is unlikely?

First off, because it's not the only contingency which this spending protects us against. And secondly, the worst of these contingencies are made unlikely precisely because of such spending.

China isn't going to attack Taiwan anymore.

Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Nor is this the only threat. It's merely one example of a case which would require far more air power than tackling Iran would.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Nor is this the only threat. It's merely one example of a case which would require far more air power than tackling Iran would.

And the strength of american air power might have a significant influence on the likelihood of such a confrontation.

 

[GreyICE]

The buffer of two oceans was rendered irrelevant in 1916, no less 1941. Likewise with airspace, not to mention American policy since about 1941 has been to be engaged globally, and to be a power rather than sit at home and watch the other powers play. Once you get that piece, the rest falls into place.

DR

No, it really wasn't. Something you seem to forget is that we DIDN'T HAVE all the stuff we fought WW I and II with. We made it. On the spot. Reasonably quickly. With computer-operated factories, robotic cutting instruments, rapid prototyping, etc., there really is no technological barrier to retooling at a pace that would kick the pants off the WWI/II era retooling.

So your justification of your point is pretty much an abject failure. If we need it, we can make it.

P.S. I think we could make quite a few factories with that cash. They could be used to make airplanes if we needed them, and if we didn't, oh look, they can make something useful. Wait, that would almost be a stimulus, which we can't do, we can only spend government money on military pork.

 

[GreyICE]

First off, because it's not the only contingency which this spending protects us against. And secondly, the worst of these contingencies are made unlikely precisely because of such spending.

Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Nor is this the only threat. It's merely one example of a case which would require far more air power than tackling Iran would.

When your job is to justify spending, you'd be amazed at how good you become at justifying... spending. The pentagon will always have 9,000 scenarios to explain why we need 18 trillion gizmotos to stop Middle Eastern penguins from eating New Zealand.

Really, we could get by with a lot less if we focused less on being an irrelevant superpower, and more on being a 21st century paradigm, instead of a 20th century one.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, it really wasn't. Something you seem to forget is that we DIDN'T HAVE all the stuff we fought WW I and II with. We made it. On the spot. Reasonably quickly. With computer-operated factories, robotic cutting instruments, rapid prototyping, etc., there really is no technological barrier to retooling at a pace that would kick the pants off the WWI/II era retooling.

You don't seem to have grasped what I was telling you, so your next statement makes less sense than the above.

So your justification of your point is pretty much an abject failure. If we need it, we can make it.

I don't think you understand the industrial base, and at the moment, I am out of time. Your assertion is fantasy, but I regret that I shall have to give you a better response later.

Until then.

DR

 

[GreyICE]

You don't seem to have grasped what I was telling you, so your next statement makes less sense than the above.

Okay, care to clarify? Your reference to our enterence dates to WW I/II seems pretty clear to me, so I can't possibly think what else you're referring to. I'll happily admit to occasionally having no clue what you're rambling off about, but that one seemed pretty clear in my book.

I don't think you understand the industrial base, and at the moment, I am out of time. Your assertion is fantasy, but I regret that I shall have to give you a better response later.

Until then.

DR

The industrial base of what? Cuba? How does this make sense? I guess I'll await clarification.

 

[rwguinn]

When your job is to justify spending, you'd be amazed at how good you become at justifying... spending. The pentagon will always have 9,000 scenarios to explain why we need 18 trillion gizmotos to stop Middle Eastern penguins from eating New Zealand.

Really, we could get by with a lot less if we focused less on being an irrelevant superpower, and more on being a 21st century paradigm, instead of a 20th century one.

I appreciate your confidence in me and my compatriots.
But we are not miracle workers. To build a competitive aircraft/weapons delivery system takes time--not to mention the testing required. Don't know about you, but I am not willing to risk YOUR life on an untried, untested system, nor are any engineers I know of.
How long did it take us to sweep the air clean during Desert Storm? A weapons system from concept to deployment in <1 week. It is to laugh. You obviously have no idea at the complexity of the systems . Hell, just keeping the electronics from overheating in modern aircraft requires systems that use the fuel for coolant!
The birds flown in WW II were already on the boards when the war broke out. Most of them were very close to flying--the others were improvements on existing designs.

 

[Ziggurat]

When your job is to justify spending, you'd be amazed at how good you become at justifying... spending. The pentagon will always have 9,000 scenarios to explain why we need 18 trillion gizmotos to stop Middle Eastern penguins from eating New Zealand.

The Pentagon doesn't make the funding decisions.

Really, we could get by with a lot less if we focused less on being an irrelevant superpower, and more on being a 21st century paradigm, instead of a 20th century one.

Your views about what America should be, and probably the consequences of that as well, are not shared very widely.