No, it is on A plane. Which is faster than a ship. An friendly airbase doesn't require nukes, catapult shooters, arresting gear, landing signals and thousands of other jobs. I'm shocked you think a carrier is faster to deploy and cheaper to run.
I'm shocked that you think this statement represents his argument. He isn't talking about deploying an aircraft carrier, he is talking about deploying planes to be based off of an aircraft carrier. Not all airbases, particularly the ones in potentially volatile regions, will be as secure and able to handle top of the line hardware as an aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier already has the appropriate personnel to support these planes, additional personnel and equipment will be more secure on the carrier than they would be on a base in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.
He said flying F-22s to a remote airbase is slower and more expensive. I don't think it represents his argument, his argument is we should have never built any F-22 fighters. That argument is pointless as we already have them.
Getting a remote airbase equipped to support F-22s would be slower and more expensive than basing them on an aircraft carrier, and would also be less secure. Sensitive components would need to be secured at a remote airbase where security can be lighter on a carrier, personnel will be more efficiently used on a carrier as opposed to a remote airbase, and the majority of the resources needed to support aircraft already exist on a carrier where they would have to be shipped in to a remote airbase. Either you don't understand judoka's argument or you're just plain wrong.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>NEW: FBI arrests 19-year-old Illinois man at O'Hare Airport for allegedly attempting to travel overseas to join ISIS <a href="http://t.co/tBNZ6hj9IN">http://t.co/tBNZ6hj9IN</a></p>— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/519159940683169792">October 6, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hey it is fun to play arm chair general and scheme military tactics. It is also important for the US defense industry so they can have the talking point at international arms shows that even our very latest weapons have been tested on real live people.
I don't think the Taliban had control over all of Afghanistan and I don't think they represented a direct threat to the US.
Judo, Raptors have been deployed to the Gulf from time to time since at least 2009. It's imperative that US bases in the Gulf region that might be used during a possible war, against Iran, for example, be prepared to base, arm, and maintain Raptors. If you stop and think about it, it only makes sense. My guess is that the costs you are concerned about, costs above and beyond basing and servicing the bulk of the current US Air Force fleet, have already been spent quite some time ago. As for whether they should have been used over Syria, the DoD probably got sick of seeing in every article about the F-22 this tidbit, "which has never been used in combat," when describing the aircraft. Another reason would be the possibility of Assad using Syria's anti-air defenses, something we didn't think he would do, but couldn't be sure of. Raptors would be very useful in that scenario. Also, concerning the cost of the F-22, typically listed as $412 million each, it is directly related to ending the production run long before it was originally intended to end, in my opinion. Look at the graph below, from the LA Times in June of 2013 (can only provide the link - image doesn't want to load): http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-advanced-fighter-woes-20130616-dto-htmlstory.html No, it doesn't account for all the increased costs, but in my opinion, it accounts for the bulk of the cost increase. Ironically (and sadly, in my opinion), the F-22 will probably have ended up being cheaper than the F-35 had the production of the Raptor continued. I hope I helped clear things up a bit.
These are both obviously true. I kept asking what additional costs he was talking about. I think some people will just have a problem with anything F-22 or B-2 related.
Security on a carrier is already in existence, thus the expense to secure sensitive materials is less on a carrier than it is at a remote air base where secure areas have to be established, which are in and of themselves, less secure than what you find on an aircraft carrier. Get some reading comprehension.
That's true. It's not like the Taliban killed 3000 Americans or something. Sarcasm aside, the United States has no interest in letting radical Islamism, particularly a highly virulent ideology which has made it explicitly clear that it wants to conquer everything it can, set up a state to export future radical Muslims all across the world to launch terrorist attacks. Seriously, what kind of foreign policy sits around and closes its eyes to any threat just because they can't march across the Atlantic? That does NOT mean allying or working with Assad or Iran, it should be noted. Netahanyu is right in that working alongside Iran to destroy IS is winning the battle but losing the war. The Sunnis are duplicitous fiends, but the Shias are absolutely not our friends. Not to mention that if you want to take a human rights perspective, Assad is still worse than IS, and a few executed Westerner does not change that.
The Taliban certainly are not moral winners and they were champions of decades of war in Afghanistan. They came out on top in a Mujaheddin free-for-all and clearly supported by Pakistan. If the US wants to pick winners and losers, who are the winners in this fight? The Obama administration appears to only state who are the losers. Saudi Arabia is certainly not a moral winner but they keep the peace. I'm not so sure that bombing IS keeps the peace if Assad is also a direct threat to the security of the United States.
Do you know how many ships, sailors, and aircraft it takes to secure an aircraft carrier. They are the highest value military target we have. This entire idea is laughable. Remote airbases are already in existence and securing them is much less expensive. Operating them is much less expensive. Deploying to them is much faster. If you feel I have a hard time comprehending what you and RJ say, please understand it is because so much of it is nonsense and convoluted. Acquisition and deployment are two different arguments.
Yes, many, and those people, ships and aircraft are already on or around the carrier. The security has already been paid for and costs for that security won't change at all if another platform is added to the ship's arsenal. Yes, which is the reason that they are already so highly secured. Yes, your opinion is completely laughable. No, it isn't. The security for an aircraft carrier ALREADY EXISTS. Increasing security at a remote airbase costs more money than we are already spending. It isn't like we are going to spend less on any of the aircraft carriers if we base the F-22s at a remote base, so it will cost more to increase security at such an airbase than it would to base those planes on a carrier. Perhaps a bit less expensive, but I would take issue with your "much less expensive" assertion absent data showing this to be true. This depends on the relative distance to the airfield or carrier. Yes, and you don't seem to have a handle on either.
Wait, are you now saying F22's on a carrier? Oh man. Gonna be posting highlights of this genius on another forum so please expand.
I'm arguing about the relative security needs of a remote airbase versus an existing carrier, please learn how to read.
