1Seat 1Engine

Stealth by itself is not expensive and is not the reason the F-22 and it's nephew are so unaffordable.

Additionally, those sideshow wars cost the country $1.5 Trillion, >5000 American lives, and immeasurable goodwill abroad.

USMCFLYR

These "sideshow wars" might not be the force on force air/land/and sea wars of the past, but calling them "sideshow" (like they don't matter) is to marginalize the sacrifices made by many of our brethren. Personally, I'd rather fight them on someone else's shores than our own.

rickair7777

I repeat what I said before: They are sideshows in the grand scheme of national security, meaning from a strategic perspective.

I know full well the cost. But the reasons behind those wars and the sacrifices involved have little to do with strategic force planning going forward, other than the public being tired of "galactic proportion" defense cost streams with no tangible return (other than retribution delivered unto some truly deserving jackasses).

Stealth was not what cost so much...everything is what cost so much. But if stealth had not been required, the MIC would not have been able to justify a massive, clean-slate "too big to fail" airplane. Upgraded F-15s and 18s would do the trick, at a much lower, much more predictable, and much more controllable cost. You can't really build stealth into old airplanes, at least not to the degree specified in the requirements. I sure hope the requirements are right

I do however agree it's better to fight our wars on someone else's turf and we probably need to demonstrate our willingness to do that periodically. AFG would have sufficed IMO, and we wouldn't have needed to stick around after the point was made. If the TB were to reconstitute their government, we could just go back and do it again....rinse, wash, repeat as needed.

Personally I think we were legally and morally justified going after sadam because he blatantly violated his Gulf War I terms of surrender. But as to whether it was it was a good idea or worth the cost...I suppose history will be the judge.

USMCFLYR

Yes rickair7777 - I expected nothing more than you to stand by your statement that these wars were sideshows in your opinion.
Bravo sir.

1Seat 1Engine

The Russians failed in Afghanistan. Did that have "sideshow" level repercussions for them?

We failed in Vietnam. Did that have "sideshow" level repercussions for us?

When you consider that all of these events have been major contributors to leadership overhauls in both the US and USSR/FSU I don't think it's sideshow level. The effects will be debated by historians for years; and that alone makes it less than a sideshow.

Saying Afghanistan was a sideshow to us is akin to saying 9/11 was a sideshow. It was treated as a sideshow until it was on our doorstep.

These "sideshows" will define most if not all of our military conflicts going forward. In the meantime our USAF leadership is focused on re-fighting some modern version of WWII/LinebackerII/Desert Storm/Uber-Red Flag Nellis Range scenario. Not only that, but they seem happy to sacrifice almost all other capability to purchase the ultimate Nellis Range dominating fighter force.

Packrat

Afghanistan...where Empires go to die. Persians, English, Russians, America. That place is a black hole.

Back to the original topic. I've heard there may be a chance that surplus A-10s could be converted to fire suppression air attack tankers. I bet they'd be awesome in that role.

UAL T38 Phlyer

Stealth IS expensive. It requires non-traditional materials and construction methods, more design testing (not just structural and aerodynamic, but now reflectivity and IR signature).

All of that is expensive.

But I think the Biggest cost is due to compartmentalization of manufacturing. Most of the "worker bees" can not be allowed to know too much about the rest of the aircraft.

Iraq and Afghanistan were/are expensive, brutal wars. But they are "side-shows" in that they are not direct-combatants against our homeland or national security. They are second-tier, and one could argue third-tier, as combatants--terrorists--may or may not originate from those countries, and fairly certainly do not receive state-support.

If this were a "main show," the political "leadership" would listen to military commanders who stated they needed more manpower and equipment, instead of replacing them, and would not announce pullout dates because 'we should have won by then.'

hindsight2020

Shack. ^^^

mspano85

You just scored a Bingo!

I agree. These wars were heavily micromanaged from the people sitting in comfy chairs in D.C.. Just like Vietnam...

Losing the A-10 will be an atrocity. If they retire, I see them eventually coming out of it.

I hope Lockheed goes out of business. What a joke of a company.

Gjn290

The F-22 is a joke? I sure don't think so. I also wouldn't hope for anyone to be out of work.