Page 1 of 194 12345611314151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 2897
Like Tree3714Likes

US military news thread

This is a discussion on US military news thread within the World Armed Forces forums, part of the World Strategic Defence Area category; As promised, I started this one just for the American news. We have so many American related threads already, why ...

  1. #1
    tphuang's Avatar
    tphuang is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,647

    US military news thread

    As promised, I started this one just for the American news. We have so many American related threads already, why not just post everything in one?

    Anyhow, some articles from defencetalk
    http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_005307.php
    WASHINGTON: Army and Air Force officials announced March 17 that a new Joint Cargo Aircraft, designed to enhance the combat readiness of both services, will be developed by a combined team. Fielding of the new aircraft is expected within two years.

    The Request for Proposals was released March 17 after the Acquisition Strategy Report was signed that morning, according to Pentagon officials. A Joint Program Office, comprised of personnel from both branches of service, will open Oct. 1 in Huntsville, Ala., with the Army taking the lead.

    “This is a big day for both of us in terms of joint cooperation and capability,” said Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Mundt, Army Aviation director. “This aviation program is going to bring tremendous capability to both of our services and, more importantly, to the Department of Defense.”

    Air Force Brig. Gen. Andrew Dichter, deputy director of Operational Capability Requirements, underscored Mundt’s enthusiasm for the new program and added that the program is an important example of the value of the joint capability and integration system (JCIDS).

    “The Army and the Air Force have not always agreed, particularly at the beginning of this program,” he said. “But joint doctrine has always provided the ability for each service to have organic lift capability: the Army’s Sherpas, the Marine Corps’ KC-130 and the Navy’s COD are good examples of this. And the Air Force and the Army are committed to taking the new Joint Cargo Aircraft program, develop this important capability and deliver it to the joint warfighter.”

    He said that the Air Force has accepted the Army’s need to recapitalize its aging fleet, and that the Air Force also identified a need for a light cargo aircraft – not only to transform itself because of mutual interdependencies, but also to be used for Homeland Defense missions and to support civil authorities in disasters or crises.

    “The aircraft we field will provide a key capability to the joint force commander,” said Dichter. “For 59 years, the Air Force has been the service provider of intra-theater airlift, and for approximately 40 years, we’ve done that with essentially one airplane – the C-130.”

    While the C-17 does perform a limited intra-theater role, Dichter added, the Air Force was long overdue in diversifying its intra-theater airlift fleet. The challenge, he said, is to transform the air fleet with the limited dollars available, to meet the transformational needs of not only the Army but of all the services and combatant commanders.

    “The Air Force is prepared to meet that challenge,” said Dichter, “and fielding this Joint Cargo Aircraft capability along with the Army is a significant step toward that goal.”

    On the Army side, Mundt said that the new aircraft would replace what he called a “very, very old and tired airframe in terms of the C-23 Sherpa, C-12 and C-26. Our Soldiers deserve better than that – we can also get them off the roads so they don’t have to be exposed to improvised explosive devices.”

    The Air Force leads the world in the ability to perform operational and strategic intra-theater lift, he said. But because of the changing battlefield, the brigade combat teams modularity and the logistics concept of support changing to a push system, the Army needs additional intra-theater lift capability to fill the last tactical mile.

    “Historically,” Mundt said, “the Air Force does not perform missions in the tactical spectrum, down to that point. Tactical wheeled vehicles and helicopters have performed that role.” Combining the two aircraft was a natural step because of the similarities in the capability gaps of each service, he added.

    The Air Force and the Army have agreed that the aircraft each needs will have the same basic platform, with some intra-service requirements. The services are developing a memorandum of agreement (MOA) which outlines missions, roles, command and control, service responsibilities and the way ahead for doctrine, organizations, training, maintenance, logistics, leadership, personnel and facilities, according to Mundt.

    He anticipates that an MOA will be approved by each service’s vice chief of staff by May 1.
    more
    http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_005315.php
    For four decades, relations among the major nuclear powers have been shaped by their common vulnerability, a condition known as mutual assured destruction. But with the U.S. arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's decays and China's stays small, the era of MAD is ending -- and the era of U.S. nuclear primacy has begun.

    PRESENT AT THE DESTRUCTION

    For almost half a century, the world's most powerful nuclear states have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither country could entirely destroy the other's retaliatory force by launching first, even with a surprise attack. Starting a nuclear war was therefore tantamount to committing suicide.

    During the Cold War, many scholars and policy analysts believed that MAD made the world relatively stable and peaceful because it induced great caution in international politics, discouraged the use of nuclear threats to resolve disputes, and generally restrained the superpowers' behavior. (Revealingly, the last intense nuclear standoff, the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, occurred at the dawn of the era of MAD.) Because of the nuclear stalemate, the optimists argued, the era of intentional great-power wars had ended. Critics of MAD, however, argued that it prevented not great-power war but the rolling back of the power and influence of a dangerously expansionist and totalitarian Soviet Union. From that perspective, MAD prolonged the life of an evil empire.

    This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever -- because the age of MAD is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.
    I don't think China's arsenal has ever been the problem, it's the Russian one that still poses a threat and probably always will pose a mutual destruction threat to the Americans.

  2. #2
    Sea Dog is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    686

    Re: US military news thread

    Quote Originally Posted by tphuang
    ......... it's the Russian one that still poses a threat and probably always will pose a mutual destruction threat to the Americans.
    http://english.pravda.ru/world/ameri...7762-nuclear-0

    I find this article interesting. It's from a Russian source and outlines the decline of Russia's capability in this area. Many U.S. military insider analysts have known this for a while, that's why you haven't seen much alarm or need to build any new land-based ICBM. I'm just surprised someone in Russia is actually admitting to the degradation of their strategic component. That's what I find most remarkable. As a matter of fact, the USA is talking about reducing Minuteman to 450 missiles with 700 warheads assigned.

    Minuteman III combined with the air component and Trident II D-5 SLBM's is quite enough for American deterrence in the present.

  3. #3
    tphuang's Avatar
    tphuang is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,647

    Re: US military news thread

    man, can't I create a thread without it turning into a nuke thread? Anymore posts on this and I'm deleting it.

  4. #4
    Sea Dog is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    686

    Re: US military news thread

    Quote Originally Posted by tphuang
    man, can't I create a thread without it turning into a nuke thread? Anymore posts on this and I'm deleting it.
    lol. Understood tphuang. My comments on this end here. You're totally right and I will comply with your request to end it.

    Here is another topic discussing the new USS George H.W. Bush carrier. Apparently this last of the Nimitz class carriers is supposed to be the most technologically innovative. Lots of neat new gadgets than previous ships of her class. Next will come CVN-21.

    http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f...25-1630632.php

  5. #5
    Sea Dog is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    686

    Re: US military news thread

    "Special OPS Sub becomes Hub for Irregular Warfare".

    http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...specialops.htm


    The Ohio and its sister ships “will be ideal for playing an enhanced scout role,” he said. “They can put a contingency force ashore behind enemy lines without anybody knowing they are there.”

    That could be useful not only in enemy territory, such as portions of Iraq, but also in countries, such as the Philippines, Indonesia or Pakistan, where the presence of U.S. troops might be politically embarrassing to the government in power. “Sometimes, we want to be basically invisible, not only to the bad guys, but to everybody,” said Capt. David DiOrio, director for SSGN readiness at Submarine Forces Headquarters in Norfolk, Va. SSGN is the Navy’s hull classification for a cruise missile submarine.
    Meanwhile, the Ohio and her sister ships are serving as platforms to develop and test new weapons systems, sensors and operational concepts that could further transform naval warfare. In particular, the Navy is experimenting with unmanned underwater and aerial vehicles on SSGNs and other subs to conduct reconnaissance, surveillance and other missions.

  6. #6
    tphuang's Avatar
    tphuang is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,647

    Re: US military news thread

    This is an interesting story, not for US directly, but more about JSF. It would be interesting to see whether JSF or typhoon scores the hit here. I would think a typhoon would cost more than a JSF. If typhoon still manages to win this competition, then it's capability might not be inferior to JSF as I had previously thought.
    http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_005357.php
    NATO member Turkey plans to buy 100 new-generation combat aircraft under a $10 billion (8.3 billion euro) project over the next 20 years, Anatolia news agency quoted a senior official as saying March 28.

    By the end of the year, Ankara will make a choice between the U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, whose construction is led by Lockheed Martin, and the Eurofighter, being built by a European consortium, the head of the defense industries undersecretariat, Murad Bayar, said in Washington.

    The new warplanes would replace F-16 and F-4 aircraft currently used by the Turkish Air Force, Bayar said.
    On a totally different issue, it seems like the Turks and Greeks are really going at it with this arms race.

  7. #7
    bd popeye's Avatar
    bd popeye is offline The Last Jedi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    17,939

    Re: US military news thread

    USN to send USS George Washington(CVN-73) CSG(carrier strike group) to the Caribbean and South American waters on a "Training Deployment". This two month deployment comes at the request of Southern Command. The deployment maybe a show of force to Cuba and Venezuela. The USN has not deployed a CSG in this area for almost two years. This article points out that Venezuela may be purchasing PRC's J-10 aircraft & Russian Su-27's.

    http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...085&ran=181584

    The Navy will send an aircraft carrier strike group, with four ships, a 60-plane air wing and 6,500 sailors, to Caribbean and South American waters for a major training exercise, it was announced Monday.

    Some defense analysts suggested that the unusual two-month-long deployment, set to begin in early April, could be interpreted as a show of force by anti-American governments in Venezuela and Cuba.

    The mission was sought by the U.S. Southern Command, which has its headquarters in Miami and is responsible for all military activities in Latin America south of Mexico.

    The Navy was last in the region in force in January 2003, when it used the bombing ranges at the Puerto Rican island of Vieques for the final time.

    Led by the aircraft carrier George Washington, the deployment also will include the guided missile cruiser Monterey, guided missile destroyer Stout – all from Norfolk – and the guided missile frigate Underwood, based in Mayport, Fla.

    “The presence of a U.S. carrier task force in the Caribbean will definitely be interpreted as some sort of signal by the governments of Cuba and Venezuela,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a pro-defense think tank in Washington.

    “If I was sitting in the Venezuela capital looking at this American task force, the message I would be getting is America still is not so distracted by Iraq that it is unable to enforce its interests in the Caribbean,” Thompson said.

    The objective of the deployment is to support the Southern Command’s maritime security in its area of responsibility, the Navy said, which includes 32 countries: 19 in Central and South America and 13 in the Caribbean.

    The Navy, citing security requirements, declined to say which nations the carrier group would work with or which ports it might visit.

    “Each ship will make two or three port visits in the region throughout their two-month deployment, but at this time no announcements are being made,” said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Loundermon, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command.

    Called Partnership of the Americas, the exercise will focus on “unconventional threats, such as narco-terrorism and human trafficking, and improving training levels in a variety of mission areas,” the Navy said in a news release.

    Stephen Johnson, a former State Department and senior policy analyst for Latin America at The Heritage Foundation, said such training exercises are relatively common in the region for the United States , albeit smaller ones.

    “It’s a chance to show the flag and let our friends know we care,” he said.

    As far as the exercise also sending a message to Latin American countries opposed to U.S. policies, particularly to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, “there is a challenge for us not to be threatening and reignite hostilities in the region,” Johnson said.

    However, there also is increasing concern Venezuela has begun to amass new weapons – from rifles to helicopters – possibly including Russian Su-27 or Chinese J-10 aircraft .

    Tom Baranauskas, a Latin American defence analyst with Forecast International, said Venezuela has plans to procure 138 naval vessels, from small patrol craft to larger ones capable of carrying surface-to-air missiles.

    It also wants to buy 30 transports and gunship helicopters for the army, he said.

    Venezuela has always announced plans for acquiring new military hardware, even before Chavez came to power in 1998, but couldn’t afford it , he said.

    “That was before the oil prices went up,” Baranauskas said. “Now the money is available, and there is a pretty nice pool to buy this stuff from.”

    Thompson, with the Lexington Institute, said that although the Caribbean is a natural training area for the United States , “we don’t have a task force there very often because of the political sensitivities.

    “So the fact we are doing it now will be interpreted by Castro and Chavez as indicative of some sort of U.S. plan, or initiative, or whatever you want to call it ,” said Thompson, referring to the Venezuelan leader and Cuban President Fidel Castro.

    He said U.S. military interests in the region “waxes and wanes” depending on the political rhythms.

    “ Right now, in addition to the persistent irritation of Castro, we have a very anti-American government in Venezuela, and we have a chronic guerrilla insurgency and narcotics problem in Colombia.

    “Needless to say, the Venezuela issues intersect rather powerfully with our energy dependence.”

    Norfolk-based Navy officials said the last time an aircraft carrier was in that region was summer 2004, when the Ronald Reagan sailed around South America after it left Norfolk to join the Pacific Fleet. However, that was a relatively quick trip to get the ship to its new home in San Diego.

    The Navy drastically cut back sending its carrier groups, as well as all other warships, to the Caribbean for training when it agreed to abandon the island of Vieques near Puerto Rico in May 2003. Such training activities have since moved to the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic.

    Likewise, a yearly exercise in the area, called UNITAS, has been scaled back in recent years. UNITAS is a multinational naval deployment exercise. Every year since 1960, U.S. Navy ships have circumnavigated the South American continent, participating in maneuvers with local navies.

    L ately, however, fewer than four U.S. ships have participated. Instead of an exercise that once lasted as long as six months, it now is relegated to a month or two and is conducted in phases.

    Reach Jack Dorsey at (757) 446-2284 or jack.dorsey@pilotonline.com.
    Last edited by bd popeye; 03-29-2006 at 09:13 PM.
    Miragedriver likes this.
    Be sure to check out...

    Chinese Daily Photos, Videos & News of 2013!!!

    "I am what I am.... Dat's all what I am"

  8. #8
    Sea Dog is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    686

    Re: US military news thread

    "Lockheed Upgrades U.S. Submarine Acoustics"

    More improvements added to the sonar systems onboard U.S. submarines. I would surmise that some of these improvements are probably from the "Gotland experiences" and include improvements to filtering frequencies used by diesel-electric subs.

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ated/index.php

    By sharply upgrading ship sensor processing, it integrates and improves the boat's towed array, hull array and sphere array sonars, running more advanced algorithms and providing a fuller "picture" of the surrounding environment. Sometimes, it really is all about what you can do with it.

  9. #9
    bd popeye's Avatar
    bd popeye is offline The Last Jedi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    17,939

    Re: US military news thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Dog
    "Lockheed Upgrades U.S. Submarine Acoustics"

    More improvements added to the sonar systems onboard U.S. submarines. I would surmise that some of these improvements are probably from the "Gotland experiences" and include improvements to filtering frequencies used by diesel-electric subs.

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ated/index.php


    All I can say now is "Watcha gonna do when a USN sub tracks you??"..Hey I know the answer to that..nuthin'..run silent run deep.

    Kinda puts the kibosh on the old "sink a carrier thread"..huh??

    USN is simply awesome. Damn proud I served.
    Be sure to check out...

    Chinese Daily Photos, Videos & News of 2013!!!

    "I am what I am.... Dat's all what I am"

  10. #10
    tphuang's Avatar
    tphuang is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,647

    Re: US military news thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Dog
    "Lockheed Upgrades U.S. Submarine Acoustics"

    More improvements added to the sonar systems onboard U.S. submarines. I would surmise that some of these improvements are probably from the "Gotland experiences" and include improvements to filtering frequencies used by diesel-electric subs.

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ated/index.php
    darn you guys, lol. Just slow down a little bit, so we can catch up a little bit.

    seriously though, I would think that working with Gotland is more of an opportunity to learn new tactics. The sonar advances would continue regardless of who you guys exercise with. And I guess all those crying by the "China submarine threat" people have worked out pretty well for USN.

  11. #11
    bd popeye's Avatar
    bd popeye is offline The Last Jedi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    17,939

    Re: US military news thread

    You guys?? You mean us Americans of course!!!!

    This story just made me bust. Because ..well I just knew that the USN was working on something. That's why I said in the past that I have no doubt the USN will find a way to track desiel boats..A couple of months ago the USN announced that it had been tracking the Gotland sucessfully. I feel there are new sensors on surface ships also.

    The Swedish Gotland class being used for training has served the US an all allied forces well.
    Be sure to check out...

    Chinese Daily Photos, Videos & News of 2013!!!

    "I am what I am.... Dat's all what I am"

  12. #12
    Sea Dog is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    686

    Re: US military news thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Nethappy
    Sorry mate.. but he's not the only one around.
    You guys crack me up. Plus some of you guys never learn to listen to the mods. If you ignore the mods, you won't last long around here, Nethappy. Tphuang is a mod. He said to stop the topic. I suggest you heed his warning.

  13. #13
    Nethappy's Avatar
    Nethappy is offline NO WAR PLS
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Some where in Asia
    Posts
    232

    Re: US military news thread

    Yeah I wrote the post while ignore the mods. But, I dun think people should me calling another person anything, just cos they think there country can defend them self. I gotta said sorry to the mods.

    But, there is no need for u to rub it in.. when u where the one who started said.. the US can nude everything.

  14. #14
    tphuang's Avatar
    tphuang is offline Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,647

    Re: US military news thread

    look, I want this thread to be strictly on US related stuff, so the discussion should be based around the latest American military news. Frankly, there have been too many threads on this forum that turned into I nuke you and you nuke me kind of discussion. It gets tiring after a while to look after that.

    Anyhow, more JSF news:
    http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...ut+of+JSF.html
    Australia and UK deliver technology transfer ultimatum

    Lockheed Martin remains optimistic that all eight international partners will sign on for the next phase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, despite Australian and UK defence officials telling US Congress last week that they will not do so unless they are guaranteed access to the technology required to operate and sustain their aircraft.
    Technology transfer has emerged as a major hurdle for some nations as they negotiate a single multilateral memorandum of understanding (MoU) for the production, sustainment and follow-on development phase of the JSF programme. The US government hopes to sign the MoU by December.
    Testifying before Congress on 14 March, UK defence procurement minister Lord Drayson said “operational sovereignty” over the JSF is of “paramount importance”. The ability to “integrate, upgrade, operate and sustain the aircraft as we see fit and without recourse to others” is required for the UK to decide the aircraft is “fit to fight”, he said, adding: “If we do not have the information and technology needed to make that decision, then I shall not be able to sign the MoU.”
    Rear Adm Raydon Gates, head of the Australian defence staff in Washington, concurred, telling Congress: “Guaranteed access to necessary data and technology to allow Australia to operate and support the JSF will be required before we can join the next phase.”
    After being briefed by Lockheed following the hearings, Drayson requested that the US government provide a written assurance by June, when the draft MoU is to be released, that the UK will have access to the technology necessary to operate, maintain and sustain the aircraft. Testifying before Congress a day later, US defence undersecretary Ken Kreig indicated the government planned to respond by June.
    The UK will not receive aircraft until 2014, and “the USA does not release things that far in advance”, says Lockheed JSF programme general manager Tom Burbage, so the issue is whether the USA can provide assurances it will release technology when required. Technology has so far been released in phases.
    Describing the issue as more emotional than factual, Burbage says: “Ask any of the partners if any of their companies have had difficulty performing their assigned tasks because of technology transfer and the answer will be no.” But he admits “the licensing process is cumbersome”.
    Drayson says: “We have no reason to believe that our discussions with the [US] administration will not be successful, but without the technology transfer...we will not be able to buy these aircraft.”
    I can understand how the Brits are asking for the source code on this, but what are the Australians and Norwegians doing?

    Some objections to the F-22 export possibility?
    http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...cle_005381.php

    F-22A Raptor Export Plans come under Scrutiny
    Project On Government Oversight
    Thu, 30 Mar 2006, 00:01

    Letter from Project On Government Oversight to Sen. John McCain

    Dear Senator McCain,

    POGO appreciates that you are holding hearings on the F-22. We find it distressing that the U.S. appears to be at, or rapidly approaching, a point at which the only way we can afford tactical air superiority is to eventually undermine it by selling it abroad. It strikes us, that if we as a nation are going to continue to develop and upgrade F-15 and F-16 technology not just for our own forces but also for export, we must retain the F-22 exclusively for U.S. use; or, if the F-22 is cancelled, we must limit the upgrade technology available for foreign export.

    As you may be aware, a handful of trade publications began to report last month that Lockheed Martin has asked the Air Force to back it in an effort to obtain permission to sell the F-22 to select overseas allies. According to a February 17 Inside the Air Force report, this proposal is “gaining strength and working its way through the Air Force bureaucracy.”

    These reports, as well as POGO’s own sources, reveal that due to the exorbitantly high cost of the F-22, the most likely (if not only) buyer would be the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF). On February 21, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tacitly confirmed this process was underway: he explain that while no proposal had yet reached him and that he was “not up to speed,” it was “a process that the entire government’s involved in,” with the Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury, Defense and White House all considering the advantages and disadvantages. Despite these reports, the issue of any foreign military sale of the F-22 has not been raised in recent Senate and House hearings that have touched on the F-22.

    One of POGO’s primary concerns about this deal is security. As the 2000 National Counterintelligence Executive Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage noted, the second-most sought after military aircraft technology secret by foreign governments is the F-22. While we acknowledge it is likely that Japan would honor U.S. secrecy arrangements regarding the technology, and do everything possible to protect the F-22 and its systems, we also see the presence of F-22s in Japan as a new opportunity for others interested in acquiring the F-22's secrets to steal them.

    There is a significant risk that, once the F-22s are delivered to Japan, agents from nearby China (the F-22's oft-cited potential adversary) or other foreign governments could steal F-22 information, allowing China (or anyone else) to build its own version.

    Though news reporting on the possible deal with Japan has been limited, some recent articles have been rife with trial-balloon arguments from F-22 advocates in favor of the deal. According to sale proponents, in selling F-22s to Japan:

    --“The US would get world-class air superiority over the Pacific” in a “location where the planes are needed” against China, “the Asian giant ... viewed by many Pentagon officials and military scholars as the most likely nation that could take on the US military in a 20th century-style conventional war.”

    --The U.S. would not need to worry about our most highly-classified, technologically-advanced weapons systems falling into the wrong hands because “Japan is completely trustworthy.”

    --Concerns about security and compromising U.S. air superiority could easily be dealt with by selling Japan a “stripped-down, air to air version of the plane,” which would “differ from the tasks that have been prescribed for US F-22A fighters.”


    We frankly find these arguments at best dubious, if not contradictory. The Air Force continues to justify the F-22's necessity by casting its “prescribed” tasks as increasingly amorphous in nature – everything from air-to-air combat to conventional bombing runs to potentially neutralizing ground-based improvised explosive devices.

    Because the aircraft is primarily designed for air-to-air combat, we are intrigued by the notion that selling a highly-advanced plane for its original, central purpose would be considered “stripped down.” (Indeed, at least one press report included a candid comment from an unnamed Lockheed official who stated that what Lockheed wants to sell to Japan is “‘not that different’ from the war planes that will fly with US markings.”)

    We are also intrigued by the notion that a “stripped down” air-to-air fighter bereft of the full range of combat capabilities – in the service of a nation whose constitution allows the military an exclusively “self-defense” role – can really be considered a contribution to “US world-class air superiority over the Pacific.” Given the array of U.S. air assets deployed throughout the Pacific, including in Japan, we believe the United States already has, and will maintain, that superiority.

    Thank you for your ongoing oversight activities in these very important national security matters.

  15. #15
    bd popeye's Avatar
    bd popeye is offline The Last Jedi
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    17,939

    Re: US military news thread

    Looks like some US "allies" want their cake with ice cream and candles...It's a form of blackmail. They know the DoD is strapped for cash..so..maybe they figure they can squeeze the US for all the cake ice crean, clown ballons etc..

    Those folks from Project On Government Oversight(POGO) seem to me to be nothing but alarmist.

    One of their concerns is the PRC stealing techno info about the F-22 if it is indeed sold to Japan. say they do steal it. How long would it take for the PRC to duplicate some sort of F-22 clone??? 10-15 years??? By then the US will be using new UAV's. Just my opinion.
    Miragedriver likes this.
    Be sure to check out...

    Chinese Daily Photos, Videos & News of 2013!!!

    "I am what I am.... Dat's all what I am"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •