It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-22s in Hawaii?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
There was a very interesting article on the front page of the Honolulu Advertiser today. It seems the USAF wants to replace the Hawaii Air National Guard F-15s with F-22 Raptors. We are apparently the fourth choice for an F-22 base. It would be a combined ANG/Active AF unit, like the new C-17 unit based here is. The C-17 unit is a 60/40 split, but no word on how the Raptor unit would be split.




The Air Force wants to base 18 of its most advanced weapons — the stealthy F-22A Raptor fighter — at Hickam Air Force Base.

The basing, with no time line as of yet, would represent about one-tenth of the 183 Raptors being built through 2012, and is yet another example of Hickam's return to prominence as a staging point for military missions in the Pacific.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute in Virginia, said the F-22 is the Air Force's most prized asset.

www.honoluluadvertiser.com.../20060302/NEWS01/603020346




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Because everyone knows America needs to flex it's muscles even more than it already has.


Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
hmmm..

What possible focused purpose could this have other than the general "flexing muscles" routine?..very ineteresting



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
It will cut down on response time for them. Instead of having to wait for tankers, fly to Alaska or Hawaii and sit overnight for crew rest, you already will have KC-135s assigned here as part of the same wing, and are starting out 2000 miles closer to any threat in the Pacific, AT LEAST. More than that if you're coming from the East Coast.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Yea Yea.. Thats all fine, but what I was aking was what "threats" do you perceive in the Pacific as of NOW that require such advanced weaponry??
surely these could be viewed as a escalation by those "perceived threats"..
You've got to remember that movng RAptors to Hawaii would be like moving B-2s to Diego Garcia, which I'm sure caused a lot of waves when it first happened.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Well, we have defense treaties wth South Korea and Japan, we're technically still at war with North Korea. Our F-15s HAVE deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan recently. There are plenty of threats out there to be prepared for still.

That's like saying since there's no more USSR, there's no reason for the F-22 anymore. Just because we're putting them in an area where they can respond to almost anywhere in the world that much faster doesn't mean we're just "flexing our muscle", it means we're being prepared.

[edit on 3/2/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Well, the deal is that if you move F-15s etc. etc.. all over the place I doubt it'll be viewed as offensive..
But the F-22 is whole new ball game..
Has this been confirmed?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Well this does put them abit closer to both China and North Korea hmmm...



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
If you move F-15s it's not an offensive move? And why is that? An F-15 is a threat too. You're telling me that if I move 2 dozen F-15s to your border, you're going to be MORE threatened by me having 18 F-22s n Hawaii than by them?

[edit on 3/3/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If you move F-15s it's not an offensive move? And why is that? An F-15 is a threat too. You're telling me that if I move 2 dozen F-15s to your border, you're going to be MORE threatened by me having 18 F-22s n Hawaii than by them?

[edit on 3/3/2006 by Zaphod58]


Ok.. I agree.. but let me rephrase..
Any build up which translates to increase in force should constitute as an escalation. Especially if it involves distances like 2000 miles.
I was trying to belittle F-15s or glorify F-22s.
18 F-22s are equivalent to how many F-15s?
You guys keep doing the comparisions, so you should know.
Now if you were to move those many F-15s to Hawaii w/o complementing that with force reductions anywhere else in the region, it also constitutes a build up, a devaition from the currently established "status quo" if you will..



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
It's not a buildup. It's replacing out dated equipment. So if we get new equipment we shouldn't replace outdated equipment without standing down other equipment? We're taking fighters that were built in the 1970s and removing them from service. How is that provocation?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Exactly..
As I said if you complement that by REDUCING the fighter count in the egion so that the overall strike power remains more or less the same, just maybe a lil' leaner n meaner.. then it does NOT constitute a build up.
What I'm asking is whether that is happening or is there an overall increase in the power of the US in the Pacific..

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
THere is going to be a increase in the strength of American forces in the Pacific Ocean. There is talk of moving a carrier plus escorts ..submarines etc out to the Pacific Coast. This is very telling to me.
I live just above Norfolk , Virginia where the Navy base is located.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
The F 22s are alsoarriving just up the road from me at Langley Air Force Base. I believe this is one of the first bases to get them.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Zaphod58.

>>
There was a very interesting article on the front page of the Honolulu Advertiser today.
>>

Try Military.com, in which it is confirmed that F-22 Beddowns are occuring at Elmendorf, Holloman and Hickam. In addition to the Langley and Tyndall units (the latter a 'schoolhouse' full of high time instructors, much as Eglin once was.)

What it comes down to is three things:

1. The F-22 is so advanced that nobody who belittles it does anything but prove what the USAF has abandoned the field on. Namely that if they cannot criticize for costs or 'dated mission' design, they will /choose/ to acknowledge, as a last resort, how dangerous it is to their 'state of mind'. Of course the guilty conscience tends to do paranoid flips on it's own and so tends to resent any added stress.

2. The F-22, despite all USAF lies to the contrary, needs MASSIVE running room to engage in sustained supersonic ops. In the signature tests off California, this amounted to 400 miles of PMTR range space. Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico all have fairly decent, interconnected, government reserves for this very purpose.

3. We are pulling out of NATO. Most of our ground forces will be gone by 2015 and while we may preserve one or two springboards (Lakenheath, Alconbury and Aviano come to mind) for 'Emergency Purposes'; I doubt even they will last once the EU sees there is no gain to be had from continuing to ease U.S. deployment efforts. Because they will consider 'that half' of the world to be theirs to mind. We'll see how well they manage but with critical force assets now less than the absolute minimum for a '2 MRC' simultaneous campaign stance, it more or less makes sense that we would realign with the threat axis that remains.

Of course everyone is just kicking themselves for losing Vietnam (Taiwan, The PI and soon Okinawa) NOW but at least we are oriented in the direction that gets us to SWAPR in a kinda-rush.


CONCLUSION:
I given you can never deploy faster than you can prestage tanking to make the theater entry happen (I doubt if the F-22 'drags' well) I don't really find it wise to put principal forced entry assets in bluewater-forward conditions by which surprise attack by sub cruise, ICBM or irregular forces could interdict rapid leap off. But since, despite the Daedalus' and OT's of this world, the F-22's ability to -actually do much- (without Spiral 1/2 A2G radar capabilities) is actually fairly limited, I don't see what they are screaming and hollering about. Oh wait...


Snicker, KPl.


P.S. I also don't like the notion of ANG crews being part of an RDF capability. Given the security involved in the F-117 effort, I find it hard to see them being able to achieve either the total system competencies or the closed-base environment required using part timers who must also be constantly availabe for deployment/training rotations (such as they are) and the minute-man response. Again, it may just be that the U.S. is so pathetically apologist now that they feel the need to compromise on everything lest someone think we are too 'militarist adventurist' for /their/ good.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

You've got to remember that movng RAptors to Hawaii would be like moving B-2s to Diego Garcia, which I'm sure caused a lot of waves when it first happened.


Actually the USAF just not too long ago deployed B-2’s to Guam for the very first time, did that cause any ripples? Orangetom hit the nail on the head, both the USAF and USN will over time increase their presence in the Pacific, and we all know why this, is lets not play dumb here.

During the cold war the US sub forces were about 40/60 between the Pacific and Atlantic the USN wants to reverse this to have more subs in the Pacific. The Raptors are just the latest piece of the puzzle. I believe there is also a scheduled exercise in the Pacific that will include 4 carriers.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
About that theory that building up forces in the Pacific alters the status quo, That is only valid if you assume that others in or around the Pacific are never building up or updating thier forces. Failure to keep the most up to date equipment on hand would be an altering of the status quo through neglect.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
We are going to pull out of NATO..and leave them to thier own problems and solutions.THe investments are going to be in the Orient not in Europe.
Europe will be left to squabble amongst themselves.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
And orange you can be sure of this how?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I do not see us pulling out of NATO anytime in the forseeable future. Although the original threat of the big red bear has passed, NATO joint operations have actually proved useful several times since then. Besides, pulling out lends itself towards the kinds of suspicion and isolationism that in large part helped lead to the large military buildups prior to WW1 and WW2.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join