Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
You don't have permission to access the requested directory. There is either no index document or the directory is read-protected."
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-04-01 03:10||
#2 The US Navy says its about 4 years away from having Laser Guns on its ships = Army? Marines?
I'll say it again - gaaawd, I miss my Lasers.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-04-01 03:24||
#3 "Access forbidden!
The link works for me g(r)omgoru.
Posted by trailing wife 2012-04-01 06:54||
#4 Sure it wasn't all the side deals from people within the government with foreign countries?
Posted by Spitch Hupemble1442 2012-04-01 08:50||
#5 Ah, Spring. I smell the aroma of DoD budget fights in the air.
However, one must ask is it the cuts or the out of control over budget fanciest toy on the block attitude of generals. How much different in the end is an unsustainable public employee pension plan than a unsustainable procurement system.
Throw in the inertia of maintaining old out dated overseas commitments for First World countries and you'll eat up a lot of funding that could be redirected or returned back to the budget.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-04-01 08:54||
#6 don't need the latest gee-whiz do-all swiss army knife airplane; just advanced enough to do one or two things really good.
lot of airframes are still good enough that it would be fairly cheap to re start the line and stuff them with latest avionics. F-22 comes to mind. and F-16 for the light attack/CAS role.
lots of 757/767 sitting in the desert that could become new generation AWACS or trash haulers.
Posted by USN, Ret. 2012-04-01 11:40||
#7 Now it works for me too.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-04-01 15:01||
#8 The U.S. can establish uninterrupted Air Dominance over any area of the world the size of Texas or smaller within a week.
This is useful and the systems that would be used to achieve it should be sustained and kept operational. All current proposals do that.
However, to argue that under any existing plan not only would the U.S. lack the ability to achieve Air Dominance, or Air Supremacy, or even Air Superiority, is hogwash.
For that to occur the U.S. would have to retire virtually all of its F-22, F-15, B-1, B-2, and F-18 fleet. Even with all of that gone, F-16s, in flight refueling, precision munitions, and B-52s with cruise missiles would still be a formidable threat to any other nation's air space.
Posted by rammer 2012-04-01 19:27||
#9 * OTOH INDIAN DEFENCE FORUM > USAF DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH STEALTH AIRCRAFT TO FIGHT CHINA, + also North Korea in effective = sustained air campaign.
185 F-22's + 20 B-2's taint enuff - USAF may only be able to field six at a time iff based from faraway Milbases like Guam + Diego Garcia.
FYI US IS SUPPOSED TO PULL OUT OF DIEGO GARCIA COME 2015.
Prolly safe to add Iran next to China + DPRK.
US-IRAN MULTI-REGIONAL LAND WAR, versus US-CHINA MULTI-REGIONAL NAVAL WAR.
* SAME > NORTH KOREA CONFIDENT OF CHINA SUPPORT FOR ROCKET. Nippon defense advisor Hiroyasu Akutsu.
No reason for Beijing to NOT happily surrender like France to the DPRK's new SpaceProg.
* TOPIX > SOUTH KOREA TO STRIKE PYONGYANG INDEPENDENTLY [from US + UNCOM], IFF NORTH ATTACKS SEOUL, andor ROK Capital Region.
* SAME > NORTH KOREA SAYS US [unfairly + unilaterally] BREAKING NUCLEAR DEAL. Nukes-for-Food.
* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > PAKISTAN-INDIA NUCLEAR EXCHANGE STILL POSSIBLE IFF PAKISTAN CONTINUES TO SUPPORT MILITANTS [MilTerr Ops agz India]: MILLER.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-04-01 23:08||