Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Sims
"have a near peer war that does not go nuclear."
All the near peers that could threaten air superiority have nuclear weapons - when in the history of war did the losing side in a near peer war hold back from using effective weapons? Why did we desperately and immediately resupply Israel when they appeared to be losing during the Yom Kippur war?
|
In both Korea and Vietnam the losing side did not use nukes. In fact when the US was thrown back after the Chinese invasion when MacArthur wanted to use nukes he was not allowed either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Sims
It is road side bombs and IEDs that are killing US troops not Taliban fighter planes or Russian submarines. Current military spending priorities don't meet current needs. 150 million dollars can put a lot of "boots on the ground" with proper equipment and support for the current mission.
|
The guys still need air support. An F-22 drops bombs as good as anything else, and can actually get from it's on station location to bombs release faster than any other asset in the US arsenal.
Supercruise baby.