3 ms·

The topic is the F-22. Are you thinking of the F-35?

bradleyjg 8y ago
No the F22. $350 MM per plane for something that will never see its, admittedly impressive, capabilities needed or used. Very much like the B2 in that respect.
- claydavisss 8y ago
  A deterrent is "used" just by being deployed. The point of deterrence is to demonstrate that you have the capability, not necessarily putting it to use in combat. Deterrence is a peacetime activity intended to preserve and extend peacetime as long as possible. One could argue that the fact that no two major powers have engaged in direct combat since ww2 is an existence proof of the power of deterrence.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- mulmen 8y ago
  The B-2 has been used to great effect in its intended role for years. Similarly the F-22 is operational today. They’re both combat proven. Geopolitical rivals have similar tech to the F-22 entering service. You may disagree with the wars being fought but this tech does what it says on the tin.
  - bradleyjg 8y ago
    That’s revisionist history. Its intended role was nuclear strikes deep in the heart of the Soviet Union. It has certainly not been used to great effect or otherwise for that. Likewise, we will never go to conventional war with those “geopolitical rivals”. Instead we go to war with countries like Syria and sub-national actors like ISIS neither of which have similar tech entering service, to put it mildly.
    - mulmen 8y ago
      The B-2 was always a long range bomber capable of deploying both nuclear and conventional weapons. It needed to have the capability to reach and bomb Russia but that was never the only intended role. It was also the first plane to drop JDAMs which are useful regardless of the tech level of the enemy. It’s a long range bomber that was designed to fly long distances and drop bombs that entered service and flew long distances and dropped bombs. No part of that history is “revised”. Furthermore, maintaining military parity with geopolitical rivals is why we do not engage in conventional warfare with them. The MAD doctrine has proven to be effective for decades. I’m happy to hear reasoned criticism of American foreign policy but the B-2 and F-22 are both performing exactly the jobs they were designed for. Both as combat vehicles and as deterrents.

No the F22. $350 MM per plane for something that will never see its, admittedly impressive, capabilities needed or used. Very much like the B2 in that respect.

claydavisss 8y ago
A deterrent is "used" just by being deployed. The point of deterrence is to demonstrate that you have the capability, not necessarily putting it to use in combat. Deterrence is a peacetime activity intended to preserve and extend peacetime as long as possible. One could argue that the fact that no two major powers have engaged in direct combat since ww2 is an existence proof of the power of deterrence.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mulmen 8y ago
The B-2 has been used to great effect in its intended role for years. Similarly the F-22 is operational today. They’re both combat proven. Geopolitical rivals have similar tech to the F-22 entering service. You may disagree with the wars being fought but this tech does what it says on the tin.
- bradleyjg 8y ago
  That’s revisionist history. Its intended role was nuclear strikes deep in the heart of the Soviet Union. It has certainly not been used to great effect or otherwise for that. Likewise, we will never go to conventional war with those “geopolitical rivals”. Instead we go to war with countries like Syria and sub-national actors like ISIS neither of which have similar tech entering service, to put it mildly.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    The B-2 was always a long range bomber capable of deploying both nuclear and conventional weapons. It needed to have the capability to reach and bomb Russia but that was never the only intended role. It was also the first plane to drop JDAMs which are useful regardless of the tech level of the enemy. It’s a long range bomber that was designed to fly long distances and drop bombs that entered service and flew long distances and dropped bombs. No part of that history is “revised”. Furthermore, maintaining military parity with geopolitical rivals is why we do not engage in conventional warfare with them. The MAD doctrine has proven to be effective for decades. I’m happy to hear reasoned criticism of American foreign policy but the B-2 and F-22 are both performing exactly the jobs they were designed for. Both as combat vehicles and as deterrents.