Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
Because over time, those most likely to engage us in combat, or at least test the ability of our military assets, adapt and start to render current assets obsolete.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...0307force.aspx
One way to keep the price tag down on military assets in, for example, the Air Force and Naval aviation is to continue to deploy remote controlled drones. The drones are perfect for the search and destroy missions that have are part of our anti-terror efforts. However, over time, the enemy will likely adapt to these assets and tactics, and well need to go find another weapon to press the advantage against the enemy.
The other reason is that mechanical equipment is built with an intended life expectancy. After that point, maintenance becomes less cost effective, and replacement is required. |
C'mon, Whell.
"Even if the Air Force gets all the new fighters it needs—381 F-22 Raptors and 1,763 F-35 Lightning IIs—it will still have to field an unprecedentedly large number of older fighters for decades, in order to meet all the service’s obligations."
Boo-friggety-hoo. So the Air Force is whining that it may have to get by with over 2,000 of the newest generation fighters, even when the F-15 Eagle is superior to any other jet fighter on the planet (except for our own F-22). The F-15 has over 100 aerial combat victories with no losses in dogfights.
So, we need to cut health care for seniors and poor children and all sorts of worthwhile social programs to ensure we have enough money to buy all the new jets that the Air Force wants at $100 million per F-35 and over $350 million per F-22 when the F-15 Eagle is still the best fighter on the planet?
I think Eisenhower had something to say about this.