Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
"So you are assuming that air bases in Japan are inviolable? Wow..."
What a pointless thought. What good would a bomber for Hawaii-PRC missions be if in all of Western Japan there's no possibility to use some paved surface for F-15 operations?
Sounds like fighting a lost war to me.
"And the survivability of such transport aircraft in a high threat environment would be very low."
Yeah, but those in command would not send them into such an environment, for there is no need. They would be very safe over the ocean, hundreds of km from the nearest hostile base. There would be no AEW&C if this was not true, and the USAF offensive capabilities are crap without AEW&C anyway.
"Isn't that a very good argument for LRS-B? You are also forgetting about LRSO..."
No, it's not. If a bomber cannot go farther than a fighter-bomber because of threats, then its added range (size) is almost irrelevant. Stand-off missiles can be used with stand-off by definition, no need for a golden bomber.
"Even if Thompson is a cheerleader that doesn't invalidate his observation."
The fact that he compared oranges and apples does, and I explained that already. Expensive or not depends on how great the utility of the item is relative to the price. Airliners are profitable. B-2 and the like aren't profitable.
"Gasp! You mean honoring our treaty obligations?"
Nonsense. Those weren't in question before the military spending doubled because everybody got hysterical about terrorism.
Furthermore, hardly any treaty ally spends as much in %GDP on its military as the U.S. does. The army of Taiwan is stuck in the 1960's, for example. The European NATO is more powerful than all realistic threats to them (Russia, Mediterranean Arabs, Belarus) combined, and spends less only ~1.65% GDP on the military on average.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html
U.S.military spending is insanely wasteful because U.S.military power ambitions are hysterical. The spending beyond what actual "defense" requires is not even remotely matched by real additional benefits. Meanwhile, the government runs deficits and neglects infrastructure investments.
May 29, 2015, 9:17:58 AM
Posted to I Believe the First Hit Piece Against the LRS-B Has Been Written