Meh, you basically implied F22's should be on carriers. If you want to run away from it I guess that is a way to go.
I argued that securing a remote airbase is more expensive and problematic than using the existing security on an aircraft carrier, which it is. I know you want to run away from this argument because it is one you can't win.
Oh crap you said they should be on a carrier TWICE. how did I possibly miss this. Incredible. You sir, are a military mastermind.
Oh, wow, you caught a misstatement by me while still arguing ineffectively that it is less expensive to secure a remote airbase than it is to store the same material on an aircraft carrier? What a buffoon.
You made the same "misstatement" twice. What material should we store on a carrier? Also, what other jets should run sorties off it?
Ermahgerd, TWICE?!?!?! Material appropriate for a carrier, that which requires high security that would be expensive to provide in a remote air base. The ones designed for this purpose.
I'm sure it would have been more without me laughing at you. If you want to dish out more comedy please feel free. After combining the Air Force and Navy what would be your next move? Tanks on carriers? I think it could work ah?
Getting back here late. Gladiatorrowdy is correct that security is one of the issues but it isn't the only issue. What you seem to continue to miss is that a fighter as advanced as the F-22 cannot simply be flown to a foreign airstrip and be operationally ready for combat. It requires specialized equipment and support personnel and is very demanding maintenance wise. Where the security situation comes in is that due to the sensitive nature of the technology and operations those have to be carefully guarded. All of those issues mean that basing F-22's isn't as simple as just flying the plane there. The support staff need to be there, there equipment and the especially the proper security in place, before the first plane even lands. Therefore basing F-22's isn't that flexible and while I will agree that the per hour flight cost of a carrier based plane versus a land based plane is cheaper you still have to factor in all of the costs regarding preparing the base, securing the base and in regard to F-22's versus F-18's the cost of the planes and what went into developing them. Now let me make it clear I am not saying that F-22's be based on carriers, that would be the F-35 which as one thread points out is a turd. Any advanced fighter needs a fair amount of support a carrier provides that support in a mobile platform. The problem with your argument that planes are just faster than ships, yes they are, but that ignores all the support that planes need. If we accept your argument then there wouldn't be a need for carriers at all since you could just fly planes to any in theater air strip. Clearly the military doesn't think that way. All of that still ignores the fact that carriers besides just mobile plane bases also provide many other functions that are important for theater operations. Anyway my primary argument isn't Carrier versus land based planes. It is that for the mission required the F-22 isn't needed. Whether land based or carrier based there are existing planes that can do the mission as well without any worry about revealing technology to our strategic rivals. One more argument that someone else pointed out to me in another discussion is that quite possibly the pilots who flew f-18's and F-16's might've been safer than the F-22 pilots. Not because of danger from enemy AA but because of all of the problems with the F-22 oxygen supply issues. Thankfully it looks like that has been fixed but imagine the fallout if an F-22 crashed in Syria due to a failure of oxygen supply.
That would make sense if the Iranian air force actually represented the type of threat that the most advanced air superiority fighter was built for. If we are talking about old fighters the Iranians still use left over US F-14 from the Shah days. While Iran has supplemented them with more recent MiG's and Chinese fighters as Secretary Gates noted none of those are even close to threatening US air superiority. To put it simply he didn't feel that a fifth generation fighter was needed to counter are two most fearsome strategic rivals so why would a lesser rival like Iran using secondhand planes be much to fear. The basing of the F-22 isn't a strategic move but a sop to the Military Industrial Complex to justify their existence and the continued existence of the Fifth Generation fighter program. As the article I posted noted Assad's AA ability isn't nearly as fearsome as that. The article pointed out that Assad doesn't have the most sophisticated radar and that such radar isn't integrated. Further why would Assad bother using his AA against people who are attacking his enemies? As far as the never been used in combat before, that is hardly a valid military or cost argument. This is like saying I bought a Ferrari and I haven't had the chance to drive it on the road so I'm going to use it to drive it to Mickey D's to get a snack. Besides that it is not needed there is a more serious issue. As I noted earlier while yes the best test of military equipment is in an actual military mission with something as sensitive and classified as the F-22 it is also the best ways our rivals can learn about it. Consider again that the PRC got hold of stealth helicopter technology from the crashed US copter during the OBL raid. I would contend using a stealth helicopter to fly into Pakistan to get OBL was something that was needed and probably mission critical and worth the cost of having stealth technology fall into unfriendly hands. F-22's to bomb ISIS isn't.
Sorry but I haven't missed that point. What you have missed is that the support crews get there on jets. Obviously not single seat fighter jets, but those are not the only jets the Air Force has. The Air Force deploys them all over the world all the time. This isn't a novel idea, that is how these jets will be used. All US fighter jets are sensitive. The F-16's we sell aren't the same planes we keep. Securing a field of F-22 is the same as F-15E. Your point about a pilot being safer in a F-18 is preposterous. http://www.defenseone.com/technolog...y-makes-its-combat-debut-against-syria/94829/ Their choice for stealth is this or the B-2. The F-22 can strike targets of opportunity quicker because the B-2 has a longer flight. Your entire deployment argument has no merit.
The US neoliberals want to continue what they see as the failed policy of George W Bush and the neocons by attacking ISIS. However, they seem to have no ambition to attack Assad. Turkey seems to only want ISIS to be weakened if a strong central government in Syria is established - one which can prevent the possibility of Kurdish state in Syria being established. An invasion of ISIS looks almost like another quagmire.
http://time.com/3484325/pentagon-isis-air-power/ General Who Championed Air Power Challenges Pentagon on ISIS The issue is not the limits of airpower, the issue is the ineffective use of airpower. According to [The Department of Defense's] own website, two B-1 sorties can deliver more ordnance than did all the strikes from the aircraft carrier Bush over the last six weeks. Two F-15E sorties alone are enough to handle the current average daily task load of airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria. Wise analysts understand that those blaming airpower for not ‘saving Kobani’ are confusing the limits of ‘airpower’ with the sub-optimization of its application. One can see [ISIS] tanks and artillery . . . in the open on TV, yet the coalition forces for ‘Operation Un-named Effort’ are not hitting them. Airpower can hit those targets and many others, but those in charge of its application are not—that’s the issue—not the limits of airpower. The airstrikes to date have been very closely controlled, tactical in nature, and reflect the way they have been ‘metered’ in Afghanistan. The process that is being used to apply airpower is excessively long and overly controlled at too high a command level. The situation in Iraq/Syria with [ISIS] is not the same as Afghanistan with the Taliban. What we are witnessing now is a symptom of fighting the last war by a command that is dominated with ground warfare officers who have little experience with applying airpower in anything other than a ‘support’ role. The situation requires a holistic, complete, air campaign, not simply a set of ‘targeted strikes.’ It requires a well planned and comprehensive air campaign focusing on achieving desired effects at the operational and strategic levels of war. The coalition should establish 24/7 constant overwatch, with force application on every element of [ISIS] leadership, key infrastructure, forces and personnel—apply unrelenting pressure day and night on [ISIS] throughout Syria and Iraq. Airmen have the capacity, equipment, training, tactics, and knowledge needed for this fight, but airpower needs to be applied like a thunderstorm, and so far we’ve only witnessed a drizzle.
I strongly agree. Why we are handling this situation the way we are gets more mysterious by the day. I think the President is getting some bad advice. Had to add this - apparently we've started using B-1 bombers over Konane. This is video from October 8th. Good news! <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/acyIYOMBQ-8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Leon panetta has given some interviews the last few days that are pretty damning to Obama, particularly on Iraq and Isis.
I'm sure you would be a more effective debater if you concentrated on the points being made rather than trying to distract from the ones you don't agree with. My next move would be getting you an education.
You are the one who got the facts wrong and don't have a basic understanding of the subject. How am I the one who needs an education? You continually claimed I didn't comprehend. Perhaps that had more to do with your arguments being nonsense? Do you even have a passing interest in this subject?
