What we support and defend

[Dayuhan]

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.

That's a poor reason to bankrupt yourself over a distant hypothesis.

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.

The rest of the world also knows that we have asymmetrical options at hand that do not require direct threat-to-threat engagement. We can, for example, cut off the economic lifeline of the offending party without coming anywhere near the effective range of their military forces. Why would you prepare to fight someone where they are strongest when you can fight them where they are weak? Unless, of course, you need to justify spending a whole lot of money.

Of course once you start with the premise that China is our enemy and we must prepare to fight them, you automatically bias yourself in a certain direction.

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.

There are only 2 J-20s, of uncertain capability. We don't even have an accurate assessment of where that program really is, what bugs and problems it's encountered, etc... "we" meaning you and I, that is, I expect some others on our side know a lot more about that than we do.

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.

Look at the state of our economy, our public sector deficit, and the cost of large numbers of superior fighters, and recall that these are known factors, not hypotheticals. Do those realities convince you of anything?

I don't assume we have no spy capability whatever. I just assume that what we do have is, in total, inferior.

Basis for that assumption?

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.

You're worried about something that might happen in the future based on certain assumptions. I'm worried about the present reality of what we can and cannot afford to spend. There's a difference.

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.

Yes, you did say it. I'm just not convinced that it's an accurate statement.

What is it, exactly, that you propose to do?