Bluegrassrivals

While we argue about same sex marriage and the Trayvon Martin murder trial things are happening out in there in the real world. Transport your mind back to 2003. How many people would have believed 10 years ago that in 2013 while the US was hell bent to give the Muslim Brotherhood, 1.6 Billion dollars in military aid, over 100 Abrams tanks and 20 something state of the art F16's, we would be grounding our own world class fighter squadrons?


"According to internal documents obtained by Air Force Times, beginning on Apr. 9, 2013, the U.S. Air Force will begin grounding front line combat units as a consequence of sequestration and the need to deal with budget cuts.

Seventeen squadrons belonging to the various U.S. Air Force commands are going to be affected by the stand down order.

The grounding is aimed to save the 44,000 flying hours (worth 591 million USD) through September."
http://theaviationist.com/2013/04/09/usa...fCQiJzD99A

:HitWall:

Crazy times we live in

Makes sense, and I doubt it has much to do with sequestration as the article states.

The wars are winding down, we should have been out of Afghanistan 5 years ago (at least)

Exactly what missions are we going to be sending fighter jets on??

A UAV is far more efficient than a fighter jet for the types of aerial reconnaissance and strikes our military may carry out. Longer flight times, no pilot fatigue. This also reduces the number of bases overseas necessary to house, repair, and fuel our fighter jets, as well as bring men and women home to their families where they belong.

We have accomplished nothing in Afghanistan, other than wasting the lives of American men and women, as well as killing who knows how many civilians. Al Qaeda is stronger, better funded, and spread farther around the ME than before, not to mention the other terrorist organizations who have also strengthened their numbers.

We can never be 100% secure, that is just a fact, and one we will have to deal with, and continuing to spend money we don't have and giving up more freedoms all in the name of "security" is just foolish.

There is only one policy to have, and that is to inform the govt's in the ME, that if an attack on America occurs, and that attack is traced back to an organization in your borders, who is operating freely, the US military will launch attacks that will level any area in which that organization operates, as well as destroy every piece of military and govt infrastructure in your country. We aren't going to come in and rebuild, we aren't going to come in and police the country, we will level everything, fly back home, and dare anyone else to allow terrorist organizations to operate inside their borders.

At least we could afford $100,000,000.00 to send the Obamas to visit the family.

Beetle01 Wrote:Makes sense, and I doubt it has much to do with sequestration as the article states.

The wars are winding down, we should have been out of Afghanistan 5 years ago (at least)

Exactly what missions are we going to be sending fighter jets on??

A UAV is far more efficient than a fighter jet for the types of aerial reconnaissance and strikes our military may carry out. Longer flight times, no pilot fatigue. This also reduces the number of bases overseas necessary to house, repair, and fuel our fighter jets, as well as bring men and women home to their families where they belong.

We have accomplished nothing in Afghanistan, other than wasting the lives of American men and women, as well as killing who knows how many civilians. Al Qaeda is stronger, better funded, and spread farther around the ME than before, not to mention the other terrorist organizations who have also strengthened their numbers.

We can never be 100% secure, that is just a fact, and one we will have to deal with, and continuing to spend money we don't have and giving up more freedoms all in the name of "security" is just foolish.

There is only one policy to have, and that is to inform the govt's in the ME, that if an attack on America occurs, and that attack is traced back to an organization in your borders, who is operating freely, the US military will launch attacks that will level any area in which that organization operates, as well as destroy every piece of military and govt infrastructure in your country. We aren't going to come in and rebuild, we aren't going to come in and police the country, we will level everything, fly back home, and dare anyone else to allow terrorist organizations to operate inside their borders.

Huh?
The proud tradition this country has enjoyed since the end of WWII, of having hands down, the most formidable fighters and pilots, depends completely on continuity. Fighter pilots who have attained elite status explore the limits and performance dynamics of each airframe out there. They then pass on that information to new pilots coming up and the tradition of excellence is thereby maintained.

Grounding squadrons in in name of dollar savings interrupts that continuity, along with the steady advancement of military hardware. We do waste money that's certain and some wasted money is at the hands of the US military. Many times however, when the military wastes money we learn from that experience. A process which keeps us from deployment of unreliable weapons systems and tactics on the battlefield which, could be disastrous.

One needs to ask himself why we could at one time easily afford to maintain our space program and the military interests of this country, where now we cannot. The answer is the lack of government oversight and waste in every agency across the board, along with runaway entitlements. As Harry mentioned, from 100 million dollar presidential trips to Africa to the multi million dollar conventions held by the IRS, the GOA and every governmental agency in between who seem to believe the lead priority of office is to party. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of US entitlement out reach workers, set up offices across the land to inform the public about the freebies of which they may avail themselves. The various entitlement programs (about 235 all toll) notice I said programs, not entitlements which, far outnumber 235, manage to give away 1.5 Trillion dollars a year or about 50% of the annual budget. When one considers that 46 cents of every federal dollar spent is borrowed, the problem though engorged with complexities, is not hard to understand.

To alleviate this mess created as stated above, this administration has come up with an ingenious solution. It seems that by adding yet another 1.7 trillion in debt structure to the US' elaborate house of financial cards in the form of ObamaCare, we will all save money and the budget will be restored. It's magic, it has to be because mathematically even an idiot could see the numbers complete with double accounting, don't add up.

So, where does one cut when one overspends to the point where he has somewhere around a trillion dollars more going out each year than he has coming in? According to liberals, infrastructure is a good place to start. For example, an already anemic electrical grid is saddled with the added stress (there's the famous Obama double down tactic showing up again) of elimination of over 280 coal fired generating stations. And, I suppose folks can continue to buy bottled water in lieu of an adequate potable public water system. Same thing with the welfare system, like an aging Atlas with the world on his shoulder, the entitlement agencies strain to maintain relative in-solvency, hence the federal push for an explosion of recipients, LOL. And the medical system that must be fixed according to the liberals? Why it's obvious, add over 9 million non-payers to the rolls and force the rest of us to pay for the whole darn thing. It's just a stroke of the pen if you ask Obama. But, once you've milked the aging infrastructure for every dime, where then does one turn? According to you and others who have never experienced war or even served in the military, (and that includes our president) we just slash defense spending.

Amateur hour, anybody can play cause rules are for fools. Not intended to be personal Beetle, just an observation of facts in lieu of political double speak.

TheRealThing Wrote:Huh?
The proud tradition this country has enjoyed since the end of WWII, of having hands down, the most formidable fighters and pilots, depends completely on continuity. Fighter pilots who have attained elite status explore the limits and performance dynamics of each airframe out there. They then pass on that information to new pilots coming up and the tradition of excellence is thereby maintained.

Grounding squadrons in in name of dollar savings interrupts that continuity, along with the steady advancement of military hardware. We do waste money that's certain and some wasted money is at the hands of the US military. Many times however, when the military wastes money we learn from that experience. A process which keeps us from deployment of unreliable weapons systems and tactics on the battlefield which, could be disastrous.

One needs to ask himself why we could at one time easily afford to maintain our space program and the military interests of this country, where now we cannot. The answer is the lack of government oversight and waste in every agency across the board, along with runaway entitlements. As Harry mentioned, from 100 million dollar presidential trips to Africa to the multi million dollar conventions held by the IRS, the GOA and every governmental agency in between who seem to believe the lead priority of office is to party. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of US entitlement out reach workers, set up offices across the land to inform the public about the freebies of which they may avail themselves. The various entitlement programs (about 235 all toll) notice I said programs, not entitlements which, far outnumber 235, manage to give away 1.5 Trillion dollars a year or about 50% of the annual budget. When one considers that 46 cents of every federal dollar spent is borrowed, the problem though engorged with complexities, is not hard to understand.

To alleviate this mess created as stated above, this administration has come up with an ingenious solution. It seems that by adding yet another 1.7 trillion in debt structure to the US' elaborate house of financial cards in the form of ObamaCare, we will all save money and the budget will be restored. It's magic, it has to be because mathematically even an idiot could see the numbers complete with double accounting, don't add up.

So, where does one cut when one overspends to the point where he has somewhere around a trillion dollars more going out each year than he has coming in? According to liberals, infrastructure is a good place to start. For example, an already anemic electrical grid is saddled with the added stress (there's the famous Obama double down tactic showing up again) of elimination of over 280 coal fired generating stations. And, I suppose folks can continue to buy bottled water in lieu of an adequate potable public water system. Same thing with the welfare system, like an aging Atlas with the world on his shoulder, the entitlement agencies strain to maintain relative in-solvency, hence the federal push for an explosion of recipients, LOL. And the medical system that must be fixed according to the liberals? Why it's obvious, add over 9 million non-payers to the rolls and force the rest of us to pay for the whole darn thing. It's just a stroke of the pen if you ask Obama. But, once you've milked the aging infrastructure for every dime, where then does one turn? According to you and others who have never experienced war or even served in the military, (and that includes our president) we just slash defense spending.

Amateur hour, anybody can play cause rules are for fools. Not intended to be personal Beetle, just an observation of facts in lieu of political double speak.

Don't disagree with much/any of what you said at the end there, but trying to stay on topic here.

As for the flights, the article specifically states front line combat squadrons. Exactly what front line do you think they should be on? There is no front line. I'm sure we had far more combat squadrons active and overseas in 2002 than we did in 2000. It's only natural that it is dialed back down. That doesn't mean these pilots won't be flying, training, and teaching. They will likely be moved to other squadrons, etc..

There is no front line that requires fighter jet squadrons. This also doesn't mean that every fighter jet squadron is being grounded.

The US Airforce has around 2500 fighter jets, so this is an average of 17.5 less flying hours per plane over the course of a year. I hardly doubt our national security is now going to be crippled.

Exactly what is the threat that you think requires all of these fighters to be up in the air all the time? Either you're paranoid, or you are just trying to use this as political ammunition, which is exactly what is wrong with the political discourse in our country.

This country is spending way too much money, the taxes are overboard, and all anyone wants to do is take something that appears to be a natural step and use it as political fodder. Both sides.

How about all those tanks congress forced the Army to continue to order, so that some congressmen wouldn't have to see job losses in their district where the plants were located. Even though the Army said they had no need for the tanks and had no idea what to do with them, and that the tank, for the most part, is a weapon of the past.

Soon, the same will be said for the piloted fighter jet.

Beetle01 Wrote:Don't disagree with much/any of what you said at the end there, but trying to stay on topic here.

As for the flights, the article specifically states front line combat squadrons. Exactly what front line do you think they should be on? There is no front line. I'm sure we had far more combat squadrons active and overseas in 2002 than we did in 2000. It's only natural that it is dialed back down. That doesn't mean these pilots won't be flying, training, and teaching. They will likely be moved to other squadrons, etc..

There is no front line that requires fighter jet squadrons. This also doesn't mean that every fighter jet squadron is being grounded.

The US Airforce has around 2500 fighter jets, so this is an average of 17.5 less flying hours per plane over the course of a year. I hardly doubt our national security is now going to be crippled.

Exactly what is the threat that you think requires all of these fighters to be up in the air all the time? Either you're paranoid, or you are just trying to use this as political ammunition, which is exactly what is wrong with the political discourse in our country.

This country is spending way too much money, the taxes are overboard, and all anyone wants to do is take something that appears to be a natural step and use it as political fodder. Both sides.

How about all those tanks congress forced the Army to continue to order, so that some congressmen wouldn't have to see job losses in their district where the plants were located. Even though the Army said they had no need for the tanks and had no idea what to do with them, and that the tank, for the most part, is a weapon of the past.

Soon, the same will be said for the piloted fighter jet.

Think what you want. The face of the US Armed Services as they exist today, was hammered out of the desperate days of WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam etc. etc. We learned how to survive in a world filled with bad guys during those conflicts and we learned what it takes to win. From the epic 'stare downs' of the cold war era to a world now filled with the ravages of terrorism, we have managed to stay on top of things. Now you feel informed enough about the matter to suggest sweeping changes to the military and the way it functions based on your own understanding. It's possible in my mind, that you might not know exactly what you're talking about. I can tell you this. We are free because we don't lose wars, not because our enemies are basically good guys that let us off the hook.

As in the case of somebody strung out on drugs, one spends his money on what he thinks is the most important. Our country thinks that is in providing a federal pantry stocked with everything from food, to Jordans and cell phones, to medicine. To me, it's absurd to think that we can all just sit back here and rely on a dwindling military featuring drones and machines to keep us free. I don't see unmanned fighter aircraft taking over the mainstay of the business of defense anytime soon. They are an effective tool for some occasions. If and when the specter of war again shadows our land, nothing short of the best military force, complete with the most highly trained soldiers we can muster, will carry the day. And, when those soldiers hit the battlefield again, they'll certainly be needing those tanks.

Sweeping changes? What sweeping changes? A cutback on military spending is not a sweeping change. A cutback only seems natural if you are ending "wars" and thus having less men, equipment and other associated infrastructure overseas. Unless you were referring to the sweeping changes, such as less tanks and piloted fighter craft. All I can tell you is do your research, unmanned fighter craft is exactly what the defense contractors are working on, there isn't even a project ongoing for a future manned fighter/multi role combat jet.

If you don't think there is wasteful spending in the military, just like every other sector of govt, you are either naive or a fool. I won't say I'm the most informed, but my uncle, a retired Col. in the Army who is a recently retired VP for one of the largest defense contractors in the world, keeps me pretty informed on things, and we have discussions all the time.

That roughly 600 million cut in spending by the Airforce is about 0.5% of their total budget.

Smart spending is all I ask for. It's time to reduce the number of bases around the world, many of which no longer serve much of a purpose, and cost tens of millions to maintain. I mean 700 bases in 130 countries.

We could cut our military spending in half, and still outspend the rest of the top 5 in the world.

You have yet to give one reason for why America needs all those fighter jets patrolling the skies around the world. You try and use some BS about WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.. and then go off on some tirade that makes no sense.

Beetle01 Wrote:Sweeping changes? What sweeping changes? A cutback on military spending is not a sweeping change. A cutback only seems natural if you are ending "wars" and thus having less men, equipment and other associated infrastructure overseas. Unless you were referring to the sweeping changes, such as less tanks and piloted fighter craft. All I can tell you is do your research, unmanned fighter craft is exactly what the defense contractors are working on, there isn't even a project ongoing for a future manned fighter/multi role combat jet.

If you don't think there is wasteful spending in the military, just like every other sector of govt, you are either naive or a fool. I won't say I'm the most informed, but my uncle, a retired Col. in the Army who is a recently retired VP for one of the largest defense contractors in the world, keeps me pretty informed on things, and we have discussions all the time.

That roughly 600 million cut in spending by the Airforce is about 0.5% of their total budget.

Smart spending is all I ask for. It's time to reduce the number of bases around the world, many of which no longer serve much of a purpose, and cost tens of millions to maintain. I mean 700 bases in 130 countries.

We could cut our military spending in half, and still outspend the rest of the top 5 in the world.

You have yet to give one reason for why America needs all those fighter jets patrolling the skies around the world. You try and use some BS about WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.. and then go off on some tirade that makes no sense.

a trillon a year is not enough for these gutys

Beetle01 Wrote:Sweeping changes? What sweeping changes? A cutback on military spending is not a sweeping change. A cutback only seems natural if you are ending "wars" and thus having less men, equipment and other associated infrastructure overseas. Unless you were referring to the sweeping changes, such as less tanks and piloted fighter craft. All I can tell you is do your research, unmanned fighter craft is exactly what the defense contractors are working on, there isn't even a project ongoing for a future manned fighter/multi role combat jet.

If you don't think there is wasteful spending in the military, just like every other sector of govt, you are either naive or a fool. I won't say I'm the most informed, but my uncle, a retired Col. in the Army who is a recently retired VP for one of the largest defense contractors in the world, keeps me pretty informed on things, and we have discussions all the time.

That roughly 600 million cut in spending by the Airforce is about 0.5% of their total budget.

Smart spending is all I ask for. It's time to reduce the number of bases around the world, many of which no longer serve much of a purpose, and cost tens of millions to maintain. I mean 700 bases in 130 countries.

We could cut our military spending in half, and still outspend the rest of the top 5 in the world.

You have yet to give one reason for why America needs all those fighter jets patrolling the skies around the world. You try and use some BS about WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.. and then go off on some tirade that makes no sense.

It makes no sense to you because you don't know anything about how the military functions. Understand, as far as I'm concerned you can harbor any misconceptions you choose and it's not an argument that I would go on and on with you about. The level of funding means everything to the US Military and other programs like ObamaCare, for instance.

One way to defeat ObamaCare is to simply not fund it. Same thing would apply to the Armed Services. Sequestration does effect the our ability to defend America. I served, and at a rank high enough to understand that there is almost no way to overstate the importance of what the services mean to the well being of this country. And, by no means is that well being limited strictly to defense. I don't have any doubt that you have strong convictions about what you're saying, it's just that you have invested nary a second of personal service to acquire the discipline necessary to make an informed argument.

Whether you, I or anybody else, likes it or not, the world will see war again. At present, war is visiting it's horror on the following countries;

- Afghanistan/Pakistan
- Iraq/Turkey
- Syria
- Sudan
- Yemen
- Somalia
- Mali
- D.R. Congo
- Israel/Palestine
- India
- Burma
- Thailand
- Colombia
- Nigeria

Sooner not later, the conditions necessary to draw the world into a conflict like one of these, will all line up and we'll be at war again. Certain limitations which existed leading up to WWII, afforded the US the time we needed to tool up and mass produce the weapons, shipping and aircraft we needed in time to face off with our enemies. We won't get that necessary time to get our military house in order the next time around. We would have to be already in a state of readiness. According to you, that doesn't make sense. Having been there and done that, I could not disagree with you more.

None the less, if all this is going toward another round of debate about the military industrial complex, things are completely different in this day in time. Eisenhower could not have envisioned the Arab World rising up in an attempt to restore the Caliphate. Nor could he have imagined that liberal la-la's would gain enough of a foot hold in the federal government to deprive America of fossil fuels. Especially based on the unproven conjecture which passes for global warming science.

Beetle01 Wrote:Don't disagree with much/any of what you said at the end there, but trying to stay on topic here.

As for the flights, the article specifically states front line combat squadrons. Exactly what front line do you think they should be on? There is no front line. I'm sure we had far more combat squadrons active and overseas in 2002 than we did in 2000. It's only natural that it is dialed back down. That doesn't mean these pilots won't be flying, training, and teaching. They will likely be moved to other squadrons, etc..

There is no front line that requires fighter jet squadrons. This also doesn't mean that every fighter jet squadron is being grounded.

The US Airforce has around 2500 fighter jets, so this is an average of 17.5 less flying hours per plane over the course of a year. I hardly doubt our national security is now going to be crippled.

Exactly what is the threat that you think requires all of these fighters to be up in the air all the time? Either you're paranoid, or you are just trying to use this as political ammunition, which is exactly what is wrong with the political discourse in our country.

This country is spending way too much money, the taxes are overboard, and all anyone wants to do is take something that appears to be a natural step and use it as political fodder. Both sides.

How about all those tanks congress forced the Army to continue to order, so that some congressmen wouldn't have to see job losses in their district where the plants were located. Even though the Army said they had no need for the tanks and had no idea what to do with them, and that the tank, for the most part, is a weapon of the past.

Soon, the same will be said for the piloted fighter jet.

The tank is far from a weapon of the past, and it was a lot more than just jobs lost, it was the fact that shutting down the factory would cripple our ability to produce more tanks in a time of war. Couple that with the parts demand for the abrams and the possibility of foreign export of one of the premier combat vehicles in the world it would have been crazy to shut that factory down. Our country has not experienced full scale war in a very long time, and the last time we did we were woefully unprepared for it. that should never happen again. As for the fighters I agree, the UAV will replace piloted craft soon enough.

PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:The tank is far from a weapon of the past, and it was a lot more than just jobs lost, it was the fact that shutting down the factory would cripple our ability to produce more tanks in a time of war. Couple that with the parts demand for the abrams and the possibility of foreign export of one of the premier combat vehicles in the world it would have been crazy to shut that factory down. Our country has not experienced full scale war in a very long time, and the last time we did we were woefully unprepared for it. that should never happen again. As for the fighters I agree, the UAV will replace piloted craft soon enough.

I can see unmanned aircraft taking over reconnaissance and other routine missions. I don't see them being advanced enough to assume combat assignments, especially combat that would mean taking on fighters from other nations. There aren't a lot of situations that are more fluid than those on the battlefield. Dog fights between American UAV's and enemy piloted fighters are an extremely unlikely possibility. Even bombing runs require split second decisions that are likely outside the capability of UAV's.

I remember the same kind of talk when the F4 became our front line fighter jet. Her long range AIM 9's and sidewinder V7 missiles were to eliminate the VFR dog fight. Kills would be made via radar lock over the horizon somewhere. Long story made short is, it didn't happen that way at all. Of course, like they say, seeing's believing. However, according to Air Force Chief Scientist Dr. Mica Endsley, things won't be changing very much for the for next 15 years at least; "While the AF manned airfleet will shrink slightly through 2027, RPA fleets and missions will grow significantly, with commensurate challenges in air safety, control, and cyberspace security. The US is being outpaced in military expenditure by the rest of world, which will likely lead to an increase in capability and diversity of international military air forces. Commercial aviation anticipates a doubling in air traffic volume, with a possible tripling in the Asia-Pacific region by 2030."

LOL, at the rate things are changing, it's hard to predict the future of our own strengths, much less our enemy's. FWIW, I don't take Dr. Endsley's comments to be quite as dismissive of our potential foes military abilities nor the growing challenge they represent to our continued safety with quite the same level of optimism as some on here seem to have.

PaintsvilleTigerfan Wrote:The tank is far from a weapon of the past, and it was a lot more than just jobs lost, it was the fact that shutting down the factory would cripple our ability to produce more tanks in a time of war. Couple that with the parts demand for the abrams and the possibility of foreign export of one of the premier combat vehicles in the world it would have been crazy to shut that factory down. Our country has not experienced full scale war in a very long time, and the last time we did we were woefully unprepared for it. that should never happen again. As for the fighters I agree, the UAV will replace piloted craft soon enough.

Northrop Grumman's GCV is to begin deployment in 2017. ( I think it's a joint project between a couple different companies)

The refurbishment program for the Abrams has already been basically cut. That's why there are hundreds of them just wasting away in the Nevada desert.

Speaking of export.... sure we are exporting them, aren't we giving 400 of the tanks to Greece for the cheap price of $0.

That's what our tax money should be spent on... tanks for foreign countries.

TheRealThing Wrote:I can see unmanned aircraft taking over reconnaissance and other routine missions. I don't see them being advanced enough to assume combat assignments, especially combat that would mean taking on fighters from other nations. There aren't a lot of situations that are more fluid than those on the battlefield. Dog fights between American UAV's and enemy piloted fighters are an extremely unlikely possibility. Even bombing runs require split second decisions that are likely outside the capability of UAV's.

I remember the same kind of talk when the F4 became our front line fighter jet. Her long range AIM 9's and sidewinder V7 missiles were to eliminate the VFR dog fight. Kills would be made via radar lock over the horizon somewhere. Long story made short is, it didn't happen that way at all. Of course, like they say, seeing's believing. However, according to Air Force Chief Scientist Dr. Mica Endsley, things won't be changing very much for the for next 15 years at least; "While the AF manned airfleet will shrink slightly through 2027, RPA fleets and missions will grow significantly, with commensurate challenges in air safety, control, and cyberspace security. The US is being outpaced in military expenditure by the rest of world, which will likely lead to an increase in capability and diversity of international military air forces. Commercial aviation anticipates a doubling in air traffic volume, with a possible tripling in the Asia-Pacific region by 2030."

LOL, at the rate things are changing, it's hard to predict the future of our own strengths, much less our enemy's. FWIW, I don't take Dr. Endsley's comments to be quite as dismissive of our potential foes military abilities nor the growing challenge they represent to our continued safety with quite the same level of optimism as some on here seem to have.

You may not think it's going to happen, but the development has been long underway, and the drones have already been tested.

Of course, there will always be fighters and fighter pilots, but there are distinct advantages to having unmanned aerial combat fighters.
-Longer flights
-Less weight (no cockpit, life sustaining equipment, etc.)
-Higher speeds and maneuverability
-Most importantly no loss of pilot life if shot down or a crash


You all are being a little over dramatic here, I'm saying that a reduction in flight time by combat fighters seems natural. We are not in open combat against anyone who has any type of Airforce. Most if not all of the current missions can likely be completed with drones. And as I stated above, this is only a reduction of 17 hours per fighter over the course of a year.

But in your all's eyes we are on the verge of WW3.

Beetle01 Wrote:You may not think it's going to happen, but the development has been long underway, and the drones have already been tested.

Of course, there will always be fighters and fighter pilots, but there are distinct advantages to having unmanned aerial combat fighters.
-Longer flights
-Less weight (no cockpit, life sustaining equipment, etc.)
-Higher speeds and maneuverability
-Most importantly no loss of pilot life if shot down or a crash


You all are being a little over dramatic here, I'm saying that a reduction in flight time by combat fighters seems natural. We are not in open combat against anyone who has any type of Airforce. Most if not all of the current missions can likely be completed with drones. And as I stated above, this is only a reduction of 17 hours per fighter over the course of a year.

But in your all's eyes we are on the verge of WW3.

Yeah well, as I mentioned, you might want to clue in Air Force Chief Scientist Dr. Endsley on your outlook for the near future. I don't see it that way. Military commanders speak of being in a "state of readiness". There is a very good reason for that as PTfan has correctly pointed out. We were indeed 'woefully' unprepared for the last major war. There is no doubt that WW3 is coming, when that will be depends on how long our enemies to be will be content filling a subservient role to America as we dominate world trade.

Today's war machines are not just belched out on assembly lines like they were during WW2. It takes time and money to build the techno-wonders our military needs to dominate the seas and future battlefields. We only have about 185 F-22 Raptors in our inventory. That is anemic fleet for the once vaunted American air superiority fighter group. Similar numbers plague the F-35 program. The problem is, we won't have time to build anything to respond to serious threat. This isn't the 1940's when crossing the pacific was a daunting task that took weeks. Sortied Russian ships, for the sake of argument, could have submarines within 200 miles of our coastline in less than a day if they were called on to do so.

Our problem is not that we spend too much on defense. Our problem is that nobody knows where all the money we spend on defense actually goes. I believe ours', is more a problem of oversight. It is not hard for me to imagine the Armed Services implementing an accounting group beholden to congress only, rather than a particular branch of the military. They could all be Warrant Officers assigned to sort the current state of spending affairs into something that could be understood by congressional funding committees.

The long story made short is this. While we flounder around over here arguing about military hardware and military spending, the bad guys of the world have their eye on the golden goose. It's past naïve to suppose that war is a thing of distant past. It's true, we haven't known a serious threat for decades but, there is a very good reason for that. Our military deterrent has been on display for the world to marvel at. Liberals and Libertarians all wrongly believe we should fall back behind our own borders as our line of defense.

Duh, would not that mean to fight an enemy we would necessarily have to engage them here in this country? The line of rationale I hear them making is we could save all this money if we just defend our own lands. The whole picture seems to get lost with these guys. It's way better to fight a war on your enemy's soil than on your own. The last time I checked, war leaves a terrible mess behind, does it not?

You have got to be kidding me Beetle. For one, those lives have NOT been wasted. Two, we use conventional fighter aircraft quite a bit. There's not always an A-10 or Apache's or F/A-18's to provide CAS for our guys.