posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 01:59 AM
Seriously? "our enemies" ? Who the Klingons? The Canadians ? Godzilla ?
There is such a thing as foreign affairs where issues need to be addressed overseas. Don't point the finger and say the United States is the only one
that does it, because that is a flat out lie. Russia and Britain are also two offenders of that same issue. Not to mention a retaliatory strike when
attacks are made on United States grounds or against citizens. That can also be used to aid in allied forces that the United States has promised to
support. Again, don't act like the United States is the only one. That isn't the topic here though.
If we need an air force, then it should be designed to protect the U.S.
Someone is obviously confused at the role of the F-15 in the United States Air Force:
The F-15 and F-22 both of which are currently in use as interceptor aircraft for the mainland. The performance of the F-22 in this role however is
lacking behind the F-15's.
So, how many Taliban fighter aircraft do we engage over A-stan every day? What the heck are we doing in A-stan in the first place (like that is
the ALL TIME no brainer question if there ever was one!)
This question has no place in this thread and is irrelevant to the topic.
Why can't we just use drones instead ?
We do use drones on a consistent basis, but drones on their own are not at the capacity yet to completely take over and assume all roles necessary for
actual combat and certainly not for defense purposes.
What country in the known Universe has the capability right now to engage the U.S. in air combat over our own territory?
Right now, I would venture to gather that Russia is a prime candidate for that, while their effectiveness might be in question. You really need to do
some more research on what is going on in the aviation world before you make a bold statement like that. The Sukhoi PAK-FA in particular is of
interest and an issue for the United States at this time with the only fighter on par to intercept the aircraft being the F-22.
also, I have one last word that makes the idea of using aircraft as weapons - SPACE BASED LASER, coming to a maniacal despot near you !
And once again that would cost even more money. While the United States has used high energy laser systems in the past, it's not particularly
practical for engaging high speed aircraft that can change motion and altitude quickly. For someone who was posting a "love and peace" paragraph
above, I'm rather irked to see you post this comment.
The fact remains the same, the sacrifice of certain aircraft for certain roles is a big issue for security both at home and overseas. Whether that
security threat is immediately valid might be in question, the fact that the programs are being cut and replaced for aircraft not entirely suitable
for the role is worrisome. Especially when you have other countries rolling out new defense and offensive aircraft like right now in several key and
nuclear capable nations.
edit on 19.9.2013 by Shugo because: (no reason given)