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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (36014)	7/17/2009 5:31:50 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

If there is a fighter threat (to the F-22) on the 20-year horizon, I simply don't know about it. Which is hardly an argument against the F-22. I suppose the more relevant question is if there is a fighter threat to the F-35 in the next quarter century or so. As for SAMs their capabilities are probably closer, but I would suspect the F-22 is a bit better here as well, more power, speed (both sustained and peak), and maneuverability, and supposedly better stealth. As for bombing, if the threat is lower you don't really need an F-22 class plane, but in such a scenario it could carry external (and thus non stealth) bombs. It has significantly more power than the F-35, and at least comparable lift, so it should be able to carry more that way. It has more internal bays for air to air missiles, but my understanding is that its internal bomb bays can't carry as many bombs. Since combat against any enemy capable enough to require such advanced aircraft, would make stealth important, I'd consider the F-35 to be a slightly better bomber, despite the external carry possibility, but its not like its night and day. Its sort of Very high threat - F-22 has the advantage "air to mud", better time to target, and better stealth. Moderately high threat - F-35 has the advantage, due to internal weapons bays better configured for bombs. Low threat - Advantage not clear and probably doesn't matter anyway, if it's that low, heavy bombers (and not just the B-2) beat either by a lot. The advantage at "very high threat" levels would probably not be huge, and the moderately high threat levels would probably be more likely to occur, so if you could only have one as a bomber I'd say the F-35 is slightly better. But you don't only have one, the alternative is something like under 200 F-22s and in the low thousands range for F-35s or over 200 F-22s and slightly fewer but still in the low thousands range of F-35s. but that doesn't include operating from unimproved runways, communicating with ground forces, or even potentially operating from a carrier deck. The F-35A can't operate from a carrier deck, or unimproved runways either. The B and C versions really aren't alternatives in the sense that the "more F-35s, less F-22s" plan is for more F-35As for the air force (which will then get less F-22s), not increase the Navy and Marine's buys. As for communicating with ground troops there isn't any reason a 22 can't do as well as a 35. Edit - Well the are of course a theoretical alternative, the Navy and/or Marine buys could be expanded or the Air Force could go for some of the other models, but it wasn't an alternative being pushed by Gates or Obama. Another alternative is to save money by buying fewer F-22s without increasing the F-35 buy, if you think the F-35 is plenty capable and the planned number is large enough.

To: Jim S who wrote (36014)	7/20/2009 12:43:17 PM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom , a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky? If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to a non-existent 'Austrian language,' would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to remember to pay their own income taxes, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illite rate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment? If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like when Dan Quayle was when he spelled potatoe as "proof" of what a dunce he is? If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of tax-payer funded jet fuel to go plant a single tree on "Earth Day", would you have concluded he's a hypocrite regarding environmental issues? If George W. Bush's administration had okayed tax-payer funded Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually "get" what happened on 9-11? If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is actually being controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt in one year, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, would you have approved? If George W.. Bush had then proposed to double the debt yet again within the following 10 years, thereby putting your children and grandchildren in such massive debt that it threatens the national treasury, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, with no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of tax-payer dollars to take Laura Bush on a 'date night' to a play in NYC, would you have approved? So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in a mere 5 months -- So, you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer. Naive, incompetent, and uninformed American voters did this to themselves. Real Americans are starting to wake up. Let's hope it's not too late.