Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (744)	1/23/2001 11:58:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 23908

"That turns out to be a bargain, as the same ride in a B-2 will set you back $14,000. One suggestion Charley... be skeptical of anyone throwing around large numbers in an haphazard manner in order to make their point. There is a hidden logic behind the B-2.. For one, if we sent a B-1 or B-52 there, it would require a full "stike package" of radar jamming aircraft as well as escorting fighters. That means that to send on planeload of bombs over a target, it would require putting at risk quite a few other aircraft and crews. During the Kosovo bombing, B-2s flew from the US on 36 hour bombing missions, WITH NO ESCORT, no radar jammers, no refueling tankers. Now, I'm not familar with all the numbers being thrown around about the JSF, but I hardly believe it will be more expensive than the F-22. And the fact that the aircraft would finally fulfill the long-sought dream of a multi-service fighter that would streamline the parts and maintenance nightmare involved in keeping disparate aircraft flying. Right now the Navy has their planes, the Air Force theirs, and the Marines theirs (although they are flying more F-18s now). One plane could save a ton of money. But the stealth aspect of the plane is what is most important. As it currently stands sending a Navy "strike package" into battle is quite a logistical nightmare. Being able to send stealthy aircraft with no escort and precision guided munitions would be pretty nifty and would put fewer flight crews at risk. Same thing with the F-22... although more expensive, one airframe would essentially replace 3-4 F-15/16s. Its ability to independently track and engage multiple aircraft while remaining invisible to enemy radar systems is again, pretty nifty and may be well indispensable in the next war. Unfortunately, this nation is one that will not tolerate high casualties. And our F-15s have not gone up against the newer S-300 anti-air missiles currently being sold to China so far as I know. Regards, Ron