Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Originally posted by WestPoint23
no one has the tech and the money to compete with the US

The EU is a bigger economy. And tech? Hmm..

Tech??? Yes, every American flyer goes to sleep worrying about the EuroFighter???

I was referring to tech generally. The idea that we can't compete is not quite true.

And interestingly enough: "However, progress is now going well, and last month it was praised by the U.S. Air Force's chief of staff, Gen. John P. Jumper. He concluded a test flight in a German Eurofighter by telling reporters: "I've flown all the Air Force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."

Originally posted by Cjwinnit
I was referring to tech generally. The idea that we can't compete is not quite true.

And interestingly enough: "However, progress is now going well, and last month it was praised by the U.S. Air Force's chief of staff, Gen. John P. Jumper. He concluded a test flight in a German Eurofighter by telling reporters: "I've flown all the Air Force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."

That's politics. Do you expect him to say "I'm surprised that thing could get off the ground"? The truth is obviously somewhere between the two statements.

Obviously, the Raptor isn't going away at this stage in the game. It's too dangerous to assume that other nations are making no progress- you have to think long term. When others do reach our level, don't we want to already have a few hundred ready, a few variants on the drawing board, and the ability to churn out additional units at a reduced price in the event that it seemed necessary?
What happens when the time comes that the EU can function as a single nation? All of a sudden we have a rival that has eliminated redundancies, effectively multiplying their ecnomic and technological abilities. We can't set ourselves up for a future where anyone- even our friends- have the ability to impose no fly zones or such things on areas where America sees the need to conduct military ops.

If the military budget needs to be decreased there are plenty of places to do it.
Stryker- the glorified Brinks truck.
OICW- we have reached a point of diminishing returns here. How many hand-held devices for poking holes in people do we really need?
Ohio class subs- Another device for "lobbing million dollar missiles at 10 dollar tents and hitting camel's in the butt" As Bush said after 9/11. Why convert them now when we have other needs?
DD(X)- A big stealth artillery piece that can fire about 5 times farther than we currently have the ability to aim it effectively; have I got this right? Now all you Van Riper fans repeat after me "Remember the Cole".

The USS Ronald Reagan- too late now, but can somebody tell me why we needed another carrier? Does the rest of the world combined have as many as we do? In a world full of exocets and silkworms owned by otherwise harmless nations, an aircraft carrier is a bad investment. I'm reminded of a quote from Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, "Vampire! Vampire! Vampire!".

Biological/Chemical Weapons: Why are we still making and storing weapons that 1. Cause problems for us as much as the enemy on the battlefield. 2. Are illegal. 3. We're never going to use. 4. our citizens don't want to have.

Breast Implants- I dont know if you all watch fox news but it was hillarious. The military gave about 500 cosmetic surgeries last year. (you all may not believe me, but the girl who Fox interviewed on that looks, talks, and acts almost exactly like a girl I was seeing for about a week before the Marines sent me to boot early.)

NOTHING projects power like a Nimitz class carrier. NOTHING.

I think that they will be able to aim those shells from a DDX. We need to be able to provide cover for amphibious landings from a distance. This way the Destroyer does not get causght in shallow water, for an attack such as the act of terrorosm against the Cole

Originally posted by GD
NOTHING projects power like a Nimitz class carrier. NOTHING.

Ohio-class subs have a bit more firepower.

Yes, but they are much quieter. When you want to go knockin' on someones door, you send a carrier battle group.

I've been waiting for the F-22 to enter service since the days it squared off against the YF-23 in the 1990's. I was also deployed to Okinawa, JP, when some of the first F-22s came into service and flew over my Marine barracks, it was a very exciting day. However, with all that said the F-22 being phased out so soon seems very real to me. Getting rid of it early on may seem like a complete waste of money, but if that money is used to get the F-35 JSF up and flying faster, then I say let's go for it. The US has had complete control of the air with the use of F-15s, F-16s, AV-8b's, and others for a long time now. Having two stealth fighters in service just seems like overkill when we already have no problems defending the skies. Point being, the F-22 is a GREAT fighter, but it only applies to the Air Force, where the F-35 works for the Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. As I said earlier, if cutting the F-22 "makes" more money for projects like the F-35 and further gear/equipment/training for the boots on the deck, then let's go for it. Having a single role Air to Air fighter in the current wars we are in seems like a waste when they having nothing to shoot at when we could be having a multi-role stealth that supports ground forces and replaces the Falcon and Harrier, maybe even the Eagle. -Semper Fi

The House leaders may continue to differ on F-22 production. Remember The House and Senate must submit a single-version of the budget to the President before it can be signed into law.

The House and Senate will negotiate over the defense authorization bill and have to go through the whole appropriations process (again). If a legislator tries to tack on an earmark in some other must-pass bill, well it's never as simple as it looks. Albeit small, there is a ray of hope for the F-22.