Funny thing about you foreigners opintions....(F-22)

[K-9]

Isn't that a contribution more suited to the Open Board?

For someone who frequently seeks to lecture others on matters of history I find this particular post to be singularly inappropriate.

Example; - "Russia is the only threat America has faced since 1814." Foverf really!!!

Hello, is there anyone at home?

Have you forgotten about the sinking of the Lucitania in 1917 or the bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941 or the destruction of the Twin Towers in 2001?

How much force is too much? I think we attacked Iraq in 1991 with too much force. But that was a learning curve. In 2003 Iraq was attacked with a far lighter army. That was criticised at the time and is still controversial but I think it was about right. Over-match in capabilities is important in order to deter potential aggressors. General Paton was once asked before the D-Day landings "Are you not using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut?" To which he replied, "Well that's all right, if you don't want to eat the nut afterwards." - Just thought I would toss that one in.

Some 80 different countries have signed-up to an anti-terrorist coalition. They are all being consulted and pooling information. It is far from the unilateralist initiative you claim it to be.

[Edited by K-9 on 12th February 2004 at 09:34]

[pluto77189]

Originally posted by FoverF
Well, not to offend too many people here, but does the US need to wield the amount of force it does?

In fact, America doesn't face ANY conventional military threats, of any kind, from anyone.

All of America's military actions taking place in someone else's backyard, fighting for other people's land. If it's really in the interests of the rest of the world, why not let the rest of the world have some say in it?

I think you just basically explained it all.

America has not HAD to fight anyone "over here" for a reason, deterrance. Just as the US and USSR never nuked the world into oblivion, no nation will attack America. In the case of the Cold War, it was mutually assured destruction. Now, it is a bit more simple: Nobody attacks the United States because they can be assured that THEY will face destruction.

So, as history has shown, the United States would be foolish to reduce it's military power drastically. Overwhelming power is absolutly necessary to assure that it is not used.

[FoverF]

Well, it would be more suited to the open board, but this is a political topic, and my comments were meant to be just that, not the opening of a new debate.

American overseas interests have been threatened before (such as shipping in WWI, and Pearl Harbour during WWII), but no conventional military has ever been in a position to invade or do military harm to America for more than a century. Sure, there are terrorist threats, but there are no threats that would justify the most powerful military on earth.

"America has not HAD to fight anyone "over here" for a reason, deterrance. "

-Who is being deterred? Who has the military force capable of invading a nation of 280 million people that's across thousands of kilometers of water or thousands of kilometers of friendly buffer teritory. No-one can invade America, most powerful army on earth or not.

"Nobody attacks the United States because they can be assured that THEY will face destruction."

No-one has ever attacked the United States without being first attacked, and no-one has attacked US soil since 1814, even on those frequent occasions when it's military was drawn-down to nothing more than a name.

As for America's massive military might being there so that it need never be used; that would be great if it were true, but it has been, and is being used, with great regularity.

As for the issue of 'too much force', that one's a tricky one. I personally thought the US used too little force in GW2, but history seems to have vindicated them. The first Gulf War was an understandable mistake, no-one expected the Iraqi army/AF to be such a joke.

Anywho, this IS kind of on-topic (ie the nature and role of the US military and military aviation), but it should probably go over to the open board if we want to continue it.

[K-9]

Just a quibble.

The Japanese were potentially capable of threatening the Western Seaboard of the United States in the early stages of WW2 and would have been much more of a threat had the USN not won such a surprising victory at Midway. Defensive measures were taken. German U boats came right up to the coast on the Eastern Seaboard and for a time they decimated American shipping. Germany's campaigns of unrestricted submarine warfare in WW1 claimed many American lives.

Terrorism is a global phenomenon. 'Fortress America' is not an option. It is a global conflict. It doesn't matter how many battalions of M1A2 MBT's there are in Kentucky. That will not protect embassy staff in places like Istambul and Beirut.

[FoverF]

I certainly don't recommend a return to Isolationism, and agree that terrorism is a global threat. America should respond to it.

But it's not a conventional threat, and can't be defeated by conventional forces. You do occasionally need guys with bigger guns that the local police can muster, but you certainly don't need the most powerful military on earth to fight terrorists.

There is a place in the world for detterence, and American military power plays a big role in it. The only reason South Korea still exists is becuase of American soldiers. But that's the kind of thing that can, and should, be put before the international community. Fighting for global security should entail global interests being served more often than they are.

[K-9]

Well, having got that out of our systems can we return to the subject of the F/A-22?

I am interested in its cost. Apparently some $71Bn. is needed to buy 200-300 of the beasts at a unit cost of $255mil. Yet estimates of its true cost differ. I also read that the latest units are costing $120mil each and that with a decision to go to high rate production the cost may fall to around $90mil in which case $71Bn would buy quite a lot of aircraft. Where does the truth lie?

[JaFu]

There is a differenece in the cost of the program and the cost of the aircraft. If the program were to be dropped tomorrow, most of that 70 something billion dollars would be gone with it. However, the cost of the aircraft is essentially how much it would cost to build one more additional plane, hence the figures around 100 million dollars. Obviously, the more planes you produce the less they cost due to economies of scale, but the overall price will still increase...thus that 70 billion wouldn't buy you more planes if you go into high rate production becuase it's already mostly a sunk cost, but every plane after that will get consecutively cheaper to produce, down to a certain point.