Leaderboard

I think our success in Desert Storm has been a detriment to our strategic planning. I think the success of our PGMs and LO assets have caused us to become too technology dependent and risk averse. Yes technology is great and we are able to execute missions while risking fewer lives, but we haven't fought a large scale conventional war against a determined foe since Vietnam. Yes, PGMs and newer technologies would have been a great help to us then, but if we had had them, the Vietnamese, most likely, would have also. At some time in the future we may have to fight a determined adversary with equal technology if we want to maintain the current status quo within the globe and will have to accept loss of large numbers of pilots and aircraft to win. Is it possible for us to develop weapons so expensive that our military leaders and civilian authority will be scared to employ them for fear of losing such high value equipment? We lost about half of our F-105s in Vietnam. Imagine losing half of our F-35s/F-22s. I doubt we could afford to recapitalize and then where would we be in maintaining desired global status quo? Personally, I think we should invest in some LO, but not solely LO. I think we need to invest in cheaper aircraft where we could buy more, perhaps many more. They would be more cost effective in operations similar to Iraq or Afghanistan and we would maintain a larger number of trained and proficient fighter pilots. One day we may have to rely on numbers and not just technology to accomplish a mission and we will have to accept losses. This is akin to the Normandy invasion or Iwo Jima. We would not have achieved success there without overwhelming numbers of young men willing to die. We may have to do the same in an air campaign some day. So, I believe it is in our national strategic interests to maintain a large fighter fleet,and fighter pilot force, to maintain a skilled defense/aircraft industry labor force, and to keep more than one company in the business of manufacturing fighter aircraft. We can't do it by buying only the F-35, IMHO. A bit of a ramble. Hope it makes sense. Regards, RF

Tell that to Congress, they're the ones peddling said shit, I'm just framing it in more concise analogies that politically monolithic simpletons can digest.

Jets in the boneyard don't need gas.

Define short term. Multiple trades per day? A couple trades per week? Less often? I have found the best success with picking large-cap or mid-cap stocks that are already in a very strong (longer-term) uptrend, and waiting for a pullback that is around 3-4 standard deviations from the normal volatility before buying. These stocks usually rebound back to their trend-line. Sell the stock when it breaks out 3-4 standard deviations above normal volatility. This is not for everybody, as it takes work, basic statistics skills, Excel know-how, and a solid understanding of the difference between investing and trading (which you seem to understand). This technique usually yields a buy or a sell about once every 2-3 weeks on average. Despite what anyone tells you, there is no get-rich quick trading scheme that does not involve taking on substantial risk.

Lawman and SurelySerious covered some big picture points. A healthy time spent on JWICS doing some true threat study (well beyond 3-1.threat) will provide a lot of supporting evidence as to why we need the F-35 (or 5th gen capes period), in addition to the big picture things already mentioned. Additionally, this is NOT a jab at all, just a simple observation: you don't know what you don't know. This is applicable to a whole shit ton of people who continuously ask, "why do we need it and what's so great about it anyways? Can't we just do this with Block 60 vipers?" I can assure you it is very necessary and no Block X viper, Silent Eagle, etc. will match what it will bring. Despite my support for the program's existence and necessity, I by no means am trying to downplay the heinous running of the program at all levels. I completely agree it could and should have been ran much better, on a quicker timeline and at a lower cost. It is the poster child for how fucked our acquisition process is and ludicrous levels of mismanagment on multiple parties' accounts. That said, we are way too far into it to go back/start over with something else - this is our 5th gen multi-role fighter; the 6th gen boat has essentially left the dock (i.e. no use in arguing adding things to the F-35 to make it closer to "6th gen") - we need the F-35 ASAP because God only knows how many decades it will be until 6th gen is even worth talking about.