What we support and defend

[carl]

Exactly. That's why all of this needs a does of calm, something that isn't achieved by stringing together long chains of hypotheticals aimed at the pre-ordained conclusion that we're in deep $#!t. Certainly one can imagine a situation that might require greater capacities than those now deemed affordable. One can always imagine such a situation. Acting as if those imaginings are real or likely to become real is not always advisable.

Too bad life forces you to make decisions about things before they become certain. Because often when things become certain it is too late to do anything about it.

Again, you're assuming a situation and assuming a set of parameters that seems designed to advance a conclusion you've already reached. What makes you think such a situation will occur? What makes you so sure there won't be enough F-22s? What convinces you that such a situation can only be managed through deployment of large numbers of fighters that are superior to what you imagine the J-20 to be?

I don't know anything WILL occur. That is the problem with the future. You don't know it yet. So that being the case, you have to figure what might happen. And if you really wanted to hurt us, hitting those planes out over the ocean where they would be hard to protect might be a good way to do it. If little ol' me can figure that, the rest of the world figured it long ago. So if they thunk it, it might be wise to think about how to counter it. That is called looking ahead and being prepared by me. You, I know, call it something different.

There are only 183 or so F-22s. The line is closed. There won't be any more. In a serious conflict with a big nation, 183 of anything won't be enough. 183 St. Michaels complete with flaming sacred swords wouldn't be enough.

What convinces me that the situation can only be handled with large numbers of superior fighters? Well, it won't be because we won't have large numbers of superior fighters. We'll have to figure another way if we can, which was the point of my idea (horribly bad as it was, see WM's opinion above). But as far as large numbers of superior fighters handling such situations goes...let's see 1914 was when airplanes started shooting at each other and that's been...98 years of aviation history convinces me that large numbers of superior fighters are good for handling such situations.

Are you assuming that the US has no espionage capacity whatsoever? If so, on what basis do you make that assumption? If by "we" you mean those of us here on SWJ, you're probably right, but how much does that mean?

I don't assume we have no spy capability whatever. I just assume that what we do have is, in total, inferior. Historically our human intel capability has been terrible, despite the CIA types hinting about great successes they can't tell us about. Our satellites and commo intercept stuff is pretty good. But satellites are predictable and all you have to do is cover something with a tarp when it comes overhead to frustrate that. Watch what you say to the extent practicable or use land lines may do a lot to frustrate the sigint stuff. Iran has done a very good job of mystifying and bedazzling us as to what they are up to so I figure, assume if you will, that the Red Chinese are even better at it.

I would be more nervous if we were overreacting and churning out newer and better weapons to meet threats that we don't need to meet. Our domestic economic problems are a greater threat to us than any foreign power, and those are not going to be improved by charging into an arms race that we don't need to be in.

Your nervous about that and I'm nervous when people are cocksure about what the other guy can't do. Together our neurotic concerns cover all there is to worry about.

On what do you base that conclusion? I seem to recall that in its day the relatively small, single-engined F16 functioned quite capably both as a fighter and in attack configuration. Why should the F-35 not do the same?

If you remember that then you also remember that the USAF always used F-15s as the primary air to air fighters. F-16s were used to supplement when needed but were/are primarily bombers. The F-35 will not be a top flight fighter because it was doesn't have the flight performance needed and it doesn't have the flight performance needed because it is designed primarily to be a light bomber. I thought I already said that.

Of course if you choose to believe all the worst possible assessments of the F-35 and all the best possible assessments of the J-20, you'll come to certain conclusions. ow realistic those conclusions are is another question. When I hear someone in the aviation industry talking up how our aircraft are lame and somebody else's are soooo much better, I hear a bid for money, usually a whole lot of it. Such things must be taken with multiple grains of salt.

I guess so. But numbers are numbers and air molecules always act the same way. The F-35 ain't got the performance. Wasn't designed to. So it could be just a bid for money. It might also be a bid to get something that will compete with the opposition.

In any event a lot of what makes an air force effective isn't just about the plane, as described here:

http://defensetech.org/2010/12/31/j-...s-perspective/

Another article of the sniffing dismissal school. "This is what they need. They ain't got it. They won't get it. I have spoken." You might want to read some of the over 200 comments that went with that article, many of which disagreed somewhat.