Frankly since Russia is less democratic and more authoritarian than the Western European countries I listed I think sanctions or the threat of them is less effective. WE also have much more influence on them. I hate to type the bold part because it fits into the world view of the typical nutter who wants to use this fact in a black and white simplistic fashion to push coup's in Ukraine, push NATO to the Russian border and essentially be fooled again as usual into supporting policies that benefit nobody except those who are heavy into defense stocks.
Yet the venerable F-18's, F-15's and F-16's were fine for the task going against Iraq and Libya when they had actual air defenses and also for bombing militants in Afghanistan and Iraq so far. That is because you are missing the context. Secretary Gates is pointing out that for the needs that we have now the F-22 is overkill and unnecessary when it can be met by cheaper fighter / bombers.
You mean when they had F-117's, B-2's and sparkvarks knocking holes in the defense? The strategery I described has been how it works for 35 years now. Without those special planes, those Strike Eagles and super hornets would be chewed up. Please address this question/statement. Why are you making a case against deployment with acquisition arguments? I mean you are really saying some off the wall and illogical statements, but this is the biggest problem. Did you argue against the use of F-117 and B2's in Iraq?
Really? You just think they are going to fly the jets from the US to their targets? You are ignoring the costs of basing and maintaining the F-22. It's both. I don't think the F-22 is needed for such a mission and I don't think we need more of them. The only argument that makes sense for using the F-22 to bomb ISIS is to show it off to advocate for more of them and also continuation of the fifth generation fighter program. I'll ask you again do you actually think that the F-22 was needed for this mission that other cheaper planes couldn't have done? Yes you are since you apparently you are bring up the speed of planes versus ships as though they can just fly them from the US to the theater. You're still ignoring the cost of basing and also ignoring the point that carriers can be used for much more than just military actions and provide unparalleled mobile support for a variety of things including humanitarian missions. Yes of course our pilots should just use compasses instead of GPS and while they are at they should use semaphores instead of radios to communicate. Really that is the straw man that you are raising? That because I think the F-22 is overkill they should abandon modern technology. I will concede the point as I won't claim expertise in the capabilities of the A10. That said as you note the F-18 can do the job quite well and has been doing the job quite well already.
And I suppose ISIS has a sophisticated radar system that needed to be penetrated by stealth. Anyway your post again shows that we already have a planes to do the job with a good track record. I think I've answered the question that yes I am against the further acquisition and deployment of the fifth generation fighter programs. What I still don't get from you is any justification for why a Fifth generation fighter is needed against an enemy who doesn't even have a Zero generation fighter. As far as the F-117 and B2's in Iraq I agree that against an enemy with an air defense capability a stealth fighter / bomber is valuable but as noted it that isn't the case in the current situation. Further given that none of our enemies / rivals are close to matching us combining stealth into an advanced air superiority fighter doesn't really seem needed. My own personal opinion is that yes there might come a day when we will need the full capabilities of an F-22 when Russia and the PRC are able to develop their own fifth generation fighters and have no problem with creating an F-22. Until then though I don't see the reason to deploy it or continue developing more. The type of thinking about continuing the fifth generation fighter program is exactly the type of waste and bloat in government spending that most people rail against.
glynch should really be consistent and go join ISIS in their "freedom fight" against the USA and the evil Jews. And don't forget to take Exiled with you.
You said "squadron of F-22's is very specific and takes longer to move the planes" So just to be clear, you think it costs more and is slower to fly planes to a foreign airbase than to sail a carrier battle group to the region. The carrier is the only ship in that group with a nuke btw. You don't think we need more of them? Good news, that has been decided, no more are coming ever. That is a settled political issue. All the support needed is sent on a plane. So deployment speed isn't even close. The cost of running anything on a ship is higher vs running it on land. Common sense. Which technology that the military has already purchased are they allowed to use then?
I will address the other points if you want but you didn't address why you are making an acquisition argument when saying they shouldn't have been deployed. You have made it clear you don't think they should buy any more what does that have to do with using them? Pilots in a F22 are safer from AA than F18. Pilot in an F22 can hit targets more accurately than a F18. You want the F22 at home until the Air Force would be ineffective without it for some reason, and I honestly don't get it.
Just to understand: liberals are cool with bombings, drones and missiles but not boots on the ground? Are their arguments about humanitarianism or image?
ISIS fighters terrified of being killed by female troops "Kurdish fighters battling ISIS desperately want more guns and armor, but they already have a secret weapon: The fanatics they’re fighting fear that if they get killed in combat by a woman, they won’t go to heaven." http://nypost.com/2014/09/19/isis-fighters-terrified-of-being-killed-by-female-troops/
Some liberals know that laws set to prosecute "terrorists" are inevitably applied to dissidents and dissenters of different stripes. They know that whistleblowers, brave enough to tell the truth, will face life-changing consequences and that an overbearing security state will distort and magnify threats so that nobody dares question it. After all, there's a (never-ending) war going on! They know that after years of egregious violations of civil liberties, air bombings, ground campaigns---the world is not safer, it is more dangerous than ever---and that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Your assertion of a monolithic bloc of "liberal" opinion is ironic.
I'm not trying to find irony, I just think it's interesting that no one here is making the "war for oil" claims. I guess I'll go ahead and make the claim that this is another oil war. The ISIS threat seems to have coincided with oil sales by the Kurds through Turkey. I guess I truly do not believe that ISIS is a threat to the US everywhere. Maybe I'm just crazy.
Please explain the link between the Kurds selling oil to Turkey and IS, and please explain how this relates to the American decision to attack IS
To me, ISIS is a Syrica/Iraq/Turkey issue. I can't understand where the US's beef is other than needing to help Iraq remain whole. And that I believe is another question of image. I mean, is Iraq a failed state? They can't stop the Kurds from selling oil, they can't repel ISIS and they seem to not get along with each other (Sunni vs Shia). The issue with Kurds selling oil is an issue of Iraqi incompatibility - the third issue from the above paragraph. I don't think Iraq can coexist without someone like Saddam. The irony of it all is that Dick Cheney once thought the same thing. <iframe width="854" height="510" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6BEsZMvrq-I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'm pretty sure that's what we thought when a bunch of Islamic nutjobs took control in a country as utterly irrelevant as Afghanistan.
You're still ignoring the basing. For the moment it is but there are many who demand a continuance of the fifth generation fighter program and as the article I posted notes that is rely the only reason for doing so. Really? So the staff to equip and service the plane is sent on the plane. You keep on ignoring the fact that for a highly sophisticated plane like the F-22 there are a lot of support staff and equipment that are needed to maintain it. You can't just fly them to a foreign base and just expect them to be deployment ready. There is staff equipment needed along with training and security for the base. Especially considering how the US is determined to protect much of the technology of the F-22 from falling into foreign hands. The military can't just fly a F-22 to a foreign airstrip and be ready for missions. A carrier has all of the staff and equipment on it already and as a ship already is more secure than a land base. Further it can bypass sticky diplomatic issues as long as it stays in international waters. So yes if you are talking about hours of flight time costs yes a carrier is going to be more expensive than a land base but you have to consider everything else that has to go with basing something as sophisticated as the F-22. It's not needed.
Huh? Ineffective? I never said the F-22 isn't ineffective. Using a .50 Cal to hunt squirrels isn't ineffective but it's not needed. That said unless you have some inside info I don't think we fully know how much better or worse the F-22 perform versus the F-18 or other planes. Consider that the F-22 fleet was grounded not that long ago for oxygen supply problems shows that the F-22 may still have issues that affect it's performance. That said even if it is running perfectly that still doesn't address why it was needed against an enemy with no fighters, an integrated AA system or really that much of an AA system. As far as the deployment argument I've responded to that already regarding that the costs of basing wasn't worth it when we already have assets in the region that can undertake the mission. Also while not as big of an issue it is still one using our most advanced air superiority fighter in a mission that it isn't needed just gives more info to our strategic rivals. You seem to be clinging to the argument that basing isn't an issue and that we can just simply fly the most expensive and advanced fighter to a foreign airstrip and be ready to go.
