BF2S Forums IED attacks up 1,000% in Afghanistan

RAIMIUS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Those two generals spun the numbers until the stone-cold truth was buried under a mantra of "air dominance," imaginary combat roles and financial slight-of-hand.

Morally bankrupt, the Air Force is willing to turn a blind eye to the pressing needs of soldiers and Marines at war in order to get more of its $300-million-apiece junk fighters.

Meanwhile, Marine aviators fly combat missions in aging jets and ancient helicopters, doing their best for America — and refusing to beg, lie, cheat or blame their gear.

Meanwhile, the Air Force twiddles its thumbs and dreams of war with China. Its leaders would even revive the Soviet Union, if they could. Just to have something to do.

If you go into the Pentagon these days, you'll find only half of the building is at war.

The Air Force hasn't forgotten how to fight. But it only wants to fight the other services.


But the Air Force doesn't have any solutions. Just institutional greed. Their strategy? Trash our troops. Lie about capabilities and costs. Belittle the genuine dangers facing our country, while creating imaginary threats. Keep the F/A-22 buy alive, no matter what it takes.

A little while ago I wrote that our Air Force needed to be saved from itself. Now I'm no longer sure salvation's possible.

Bias much?

Is the F-22 rediculously expensive? Yes.  Is the F-22 superior to all foreign designs? Yes.  Are the F-16 and F-15 superior to all foreign designs? No.

Your solution: Make due, and hope we don't face a powerful nation with modern fighters and/or air defense systems.
My solution: Make sure we have the ability to defeat any potential adversary. (but it will cost...)

What will actually happen?
hint:

Gen. Norton Schwartz, CSAF wrote:

We have said 243 is the ideal fleet size given the things we see in front of us.  Can we afford 60 more F-22s?  The conclusion we came to is we can't, given the other demands we have...

So the decision was to discontinue F-22 production at 187 and discontinue C-17 production at 205.

Not my solution, but that's reality.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And 10,000 MRAPS couldn't do what a single B2 does. It's a nonsensical, logically flawed, argument.

And with one MFAP you could do things you can't do with 10,000 B2s
Feel free to slap yourself.

FEOS wrote:

The point being that YOUR logic was flawed. I'm not the one who made the shit-poor argument.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Do we measure efficiency in how many people we lose?  USAF seems to be doing pretty well by that metric.
P.S. It's a piss poor metric!

KMarion, I was actually commenting on the bias of the author of your posted article, not you.  Look at that thing.  It's a hit job against the USAF and a compliment to the USMC.  Complimenting the USMC is nice, but the guy seems to have serious hate against the AF.
Comparing MRAPs to F-22s is a poor comparison anyway.  One is an armored transport.  We do need a bunch of them!  The F-22 is a primary offensive and defensive weapon system, more like the Abrams, AH-64, and missile system wrapped into one.  The USAF firmly believes that we must control the air to control the battlefield, and we do a good job at it.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The point being that YOUR logic was flawed. I'm not the one who made the shit-poor argument.

Its not a poor argument at all.

For the same money you can have:

One B2 pilot can operate in relative safety

How ever many troops 5,000 MFAPs can carry can operate in relative safety.

Now, compare and contrast USAF and ground forces casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq and tell me where you get a better dollar value.

And that points to short-sightedness and a lack of understanding of how the defense budget and requirements process works.

One: B2 production STOPPED long before the MRAP was even thought of.

Two: Those MRAP-equipped soldiers, marines, sailors (yes, sailors) and airmen (yes, airmen) call in aircraft to support them daily. If they didn't have that air support (provided by those darned expensive airplanes), it wouldn't matter how many MRAPS they had, because they would be overrun and dead.

Three: The long-term acquisition strategy of all services includes buying things that are needed for a multitude of missions beyond just those being executed today. That includes the Army and Marine Corps. That's right...even those services that have the highest need for MRAPs spend money on other things that aren't being used in the fight today.

And why is that? Because, in addition to the two counter-insurgency fights, the Services still must man, train, and equip to be able to fight mano-a-mano with a near-peer nation-state...as directed by the President and Congress.

Mekstizzle wrote:

What I don't understand is how we have the fourth largest military budget in the world yet for some reason it seems like troops are underequipped and underfunded in Afghanistan. And unlike the US our Air Force and Navy aren't getting all the goodies whilst our guys on the ground die, they seem to be just as inadequately funded too.

It all just doesn't add up. You have the head of the Army asking for more equipment etc.. and it's like according to our budget they shouldn't have to be asking for anything.

S3v3N wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So for the price of a single B2 the army could have 5,000 MRAPS.
Seems like a no-brainer - I should get a job at the Pentagon.
FEOS - You remember when you had a budget? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And 10,000 MRAPS couldn't do what a single B2 does. It's a nonsensical, logically flawed, argument.

You obviously have never seen what 30 grunts can do with small arms.


I'm pretty sure 10,000 MRAPS could do more damage than a single B2.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-07-18 16:23:39)