Comments on: Gates Opposed AF Plans to Deploy F-22 to Iraq

By: NTV

NTV — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:41:04 +0000

DA–
I did read what you said, which is why I commented on it. And in my comment I mentioned that the US currently flys any number of Low Density/High Demand aircraft out of Al Udeid. Those LD/HD planes are very valuable in thier own right, and yet they are still based close to Iran. If Al Udeid is so vulnerable then why do we continue to base Rivet Joint, Combat Sent, JSTARS, AWACS, U-2’s and B-1’s there?

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:21:34 +0000

DarthAmerica,
The details of the USAF study are classified but the results that the USAF NEEDS AT LEAST 381 F-22s to fulfill all its responsibilities in the coming decades is not.
You can site NO in depth study that says the USAF can get by with 187. But since you are so ignorant let me give a little (VERY TRUNCATED) history lesson on how it is we got to the 187 currently committed to being funded. The current adminstration under its “long term” defense plans determined that it could commit to a multi-year agreement to fund 183 F-22s through the FY2009 budget (the last budget the current administration would be involved in). BUT that determination of any further F-22s would be passed off to the next administration. As part of the FY2009 war supplemental bill 4 additional F-22s are to be funded to replace a number of aircraft losses that have occured bringing the current total to 187. NO study/evaluation based on actual USAF requirements, commitments, responsibilities has been done to determine that 183 (or 187 OR ANY NUMBER OTHER THAN THE 381 THE USAF STUDY FOUND) is enough F-22s — 183 comes simply from the number that was determined would be funded through the FY2009 budget!
It is not USAF pilots who say the USAF needs 381 F-22s, it is the USAF. And the USAF did not just pull a number out of thin air but actually conducted an in depth study to determine how many it needed.
You don’t have to have been to Iraq to be fully aware that Balad is NOT the only location in the region F-22s could operate from or that they would not likely operate from ANY location they would not be safe from attack. Think about it, we defeated Iraq TWICE operating our fighters from bases NOT IN IRAQ.
Sorry but it is not 1991, US air defense systems are MUCH more capable today then they were in 1991. ;) ANY aircraft Iran sent to attack our F-22s would be shot down by our F-22s before Iran even knew what hit them. Don’t believe the hipe of Iran’s missile capabilities. Iran has NO ground attack missile system capable of reaching locations F-22s would operate from which the US could not shoot down.

By: NTV

NTV — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:59:38 +0000

DA,
Yes, basing the F-22 in Iraq would be risky, but that was never really in the cards, We dont base RC’s U-2’s and B-1’s there, why would we base F-22’s there? The logical place to base them is Quatar, where we base Combat Sent, Rivet Joint, U-2, and any other low density high demand asset. Force protection is a concern, but its a concern with other assets as well, and those assets have been flying in the region for years.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:52:19 +0000

DarthAmerica,
YOU are the one not supporting your arguments. What have I not supported?
I never said it is BS to discuss situations where a particular platform is necessary. I said Gates ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ policy is BS. We are WINNING the ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ & our losses in the ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ are & have been DRAMATICALLY LOW so there is no need to sarifice our ability to win future wars in order to win (or even do significantly better in) the ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’.
The USAF HAS made a strong & valid case for it NEED for at least 381 F-22 but F-22 detractors don’t care and NOBODY has made ANY valid case whatsoever for the USAF not getting the 381 F-22s it NEEDS.
It is NOT about more F-22s over other needs. Getting more F-22s would not effect ANY other needs (more urgent or not). The amount of money needed to get 381 F-22s is a DROP IN THE BUCKET @ ~$3 billion a year (constant dollars of course & likely do DROP with a multi-year full commitment) if the rate of 20 aircraft per year were to continue until the USAF had the 381 it NEEDS. To put that into perspective ~$3 billion is ~0.097% of the $3.1 trillion FY2009 US budget, ~0.58% of the $515.4 billion FY2009 US defense budget & ~2.1% of the $143.8 billion FY2009 USAF budget.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT! IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT BENFIT THE F-22 WILL BRING TO THE WAR IN IRAQ BUT THAT THE REASON THE USAF HAS EVEN SUGGESTED SENDING THE F-22 TO IRAQ IS BECAUSE OF GATES’ BS ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ POLICY & THAT THE PRIMARY REASON GATES NIXED THE PLAN IS BECAUSE OF HIS OPPOSITION TO (as apossed to support of) THE USAF GETTING ALL THE F-22s IT NEEDS!
I never said F-22s SHOULD be deployed to Iraq. I never said F-22s were NEEDED in Iraq either. I have even said that F-22s in Iraq is not the most efficient use of the F-22s or the most efficent way to do the things that F-22s would do in Iraq. If it were not for Gates’ BS ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ &/or Gates opposition to the USAF getting the 381 F-22s it NEEDS, the USAF would not likely have even suggested sending F-22s to Iraq except for as part of a consigency plan for conflict with Iran.
Oh yeah, US assests in Iraq are SOOO vulnerable that we should not even both having them there. LOL

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:31:30 +0000

DarthAmerica,
YOU are the one content to read the internet and believe the rhetoric & YOU are being naive. YOU are the ono who needs to open your mind to what is REALLY going on.
The whole point of what I have been saying is that if all you do is read/listen to the “news” without BOTH checking to see if what the “news” is saying is even accurate AND “connecting the dots” from multiple “news events” in order to obtain a MUCH BETTER (more accurate) understanding of what is REALLY going on then you DON’T have a clue what is REALLY going on. Gates nixing USAF plans to send F-22’s to Iraq (which is itself MORE about Gates’ BS current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight at the expense future wars than anything else) is MORE about Gates not wanting to support the USAF getting more F-22s than ANYTHING to do with Iran. Unfortunately you have to have been paying attention a while before THIS “news even” to realize that. Iran is the rhetoric in this case.
Yes F-22’s in Iraq would signal only one thing & that one thing is that the US is SERIOUS about Iran NOT obtaining nuclear weapons & that it IS prepared to do what is necessary to prevent it.
What you are missing in your F-15s, F-16s & F/A-18s argument is that our F-15s, F-16s & F/A-18s are in need of replacement (not only because of more capable threats then when the F-15s, F-16s & F/A-18s were procured but because, even though they can be upgraded, they CAN NOT FLY FOREVER). The F-22 is the replacement for the F-15 & the F-35 is the replacement for the F-16s and F/A-18s. Note that the USAF plan to keep 178 F-15C Golden Eagle beyong 2025 ASSUMES the USAF getting 381 F-22 — the 178 F-15C Golden Eagles are to AUGMENT the 381 F-22s NOT make up for the USAF not getting 381 F-22s.
More F-22s ARE needed. More than 381 would be desirable. The USAF would love to have more than 381 of them. And it WILL eventually need more than 381 unless an even newer fighter is introduced to replace the 178 F-15C Golden Eagles (don’t give anyone the BS that the F-35 is that new fighter because IT ISN’T — we will have a hard enough time getting enough F-35s to replace the aircraft it is slated to replace much less to replace any F-15s). Anyone who says one has to produce a single example of a realistic conflict scenario where they would be necessary and where assets we already have would be inadequate is full OF SHIT because the US military is not built on single conflict scenarios.
2001 Quadrennial Defense Review
“
The force-sizing construct

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:17:35 +0000

DA, like I said, I do not disagree with you on many specific points in regards to defense appropriations: we do need EW and BMD, and more, a new assault rifle (the M-16 is nearly as old as my father now), and the restoration of several more divisions, etc, etc.
I do disagree with the general notion that Gates is the second coming of some cigar-chomping, kickass Christ in the Defense Department. He is an average SecDef. He doesn’t have Rumsfeld’s faults. Maybe that is enough. But the success on his watch is almost singlehandedly Petraeus’s. Again, see above (Gates is not = Rumsfeld).
I’m honestly too bored with the F-22 arguments, pro and con. My take is simply: we have the goddamn thing, let’s buy enough of them to have a deep bench. I like the F-22. It is valuable. It replaces the F-117 and now the F-15. We need more, buy more. Cut pork — the hippy musuems, the bridges to nowhere — to pay for ‘em. I respect you have an opinion; but save it. :) Again, no desire to re-argue what I have almost neglible impact on.
On the other hand, third world countries can absorb a severe increase in the cost of food/fuel (both are, after all, linked) without mass starvation. It will hurt and I am sure some will die, but then again, third world countries are almost by definition shitholes. We would stand 34th in line in blame behind every corrupt dictator than ruined their country and their secret police, their already self-inflicted tragedy, etc, etc. That’s where the hardship is most severe, where people are most vulnerable, and where we have the least influence.
The worldwide hardship line falls flat for me. But then again, in my cold heart, I chuckle every time some pockfaced freshman waives a Chomsky pamphlet claiming that bombing Al Shifa (the, um, drug factory/NBC facility) killed 100,000 magical people. I do the same whenever I hear 3 Trillion Dollar War (!!!) and that the US killed 1 million people in Iraq (!!!).
Life is already tough for those folks. Nobody wants to make it worse. But a nuclear-armed Iran is completely unacceptable.
* I use my personal, military experience all the time; it is a major component of my life, very valuable, and, sometimes, a very convenient club to whack the ignorant and the plain moronic.

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 06:54:31 +0000

DA,
While I respect your opinions on many things, mostly on bashing the free-for-all anti-American Eurotrash Pinko trolls that plague this site, an appeal to authority on the internet under a pseudonym just simply does not have that ring of authenticity that you might like.
I hardly think deploying F-22s to Iraq makes much sense; let’s not rush $180 million dollar Ferraris, as someone else said, to the sandbox, especially as they are so new and the squadrons are still learning how to use them, maintain them. In Iraq, within range of a lucky mortar shell? Um, no thank you. Now, to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, maybe.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, back channel communications, war is the last and final option, etc, etc. War is and should be the last and final option.
But at the end of the day, if the choice is between a nuclear-armed Iran and war, and $10/gallon gas among other things, then I choose war.
IGM, I Got Mine, I served, and I’m a citizen. That’s my say-so. That’s all I need. The reverse Chicken-hawk thing, drop that BS. Unless you want to drop name, rank and serial number, post your decorations and awards, your tours, etc — and if anyone really cares, which, unfortunately, I really don’t (sorry, bro, I’ll listen to your arguments, but set aside my own faculty of reason on your say-so, or even Gen Petraeus’s) — you are just another anonymous commentator.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:44:13 +0000

DarthAmerica,
Thank you so much for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are smoking something & that you have not understood ANYTHING the Iranian leadership has said in the past oh I don’t know DECADE… :)
F-22 deployment to Iraq COULD have bearing on any decision to fund more because in so doing the F-22 would prove its utility in the the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight & Gates’ BS assertion that it has none would be exposed for the BS that it is & thus Gates could no longer use his BS polity that any/all new weapose sytems developement/procurement “must” be applicable to the the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight as an excuse to not support the USAF NEED for more F-22s.
I didn’t say the political consequences of sending the F-22 to Iraq are not valid concerns but you in your blissful ignorance fail to realize that said consequences are NOT necessarliy going to be negative or lead to an “escalation” of anything other than Iranian realization of US resolve. What I DID say is that that excuse if “cover” for the REAL reason Gates does not what the F-22 to go to Iraq.
WHAT progress being made between the USA and Iran over Iraq? Other than coalition forces kicking the Iranian proxy soldier’s but & Iran’s POSSIBLE realization that their support of the insurgency in Iraq is NOT having the desired effect.
DoD Buzz is a “sister site” to DefenseTech being actively promoted by Christian here on DefenseTech. I guess you need to send a message to Christian that he needs to stop this & sever all ties with DoD Buzz since it is so wrong most of the time. The DoD Buzz IS THE SAME ARTICLE posted here on DefenseTech except that the post on DefenseTech is truncated. What you missed is the parts of the article which were truncated (as well as insite provided from other reports). ;)
Yes I know that there is MUCH MORE to the USAF than how many F-22s it has and manned air to air combat but the USAF DOES have a very clear requirement for more F-22s in order to fulfill its obligations in the decades to come.
Try reading this for some perspective.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1266.shtml

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:09:19 +0000

DarthAmerica,
Read the rest of this story and other killer acquisition content at our new site, DoD Buzz. ;)
You are missing something from only reading this one…

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:02:10 +0000

DarthAmerica, You are too full of yourself. I understand MUCH more than you know & appearantly more than you since you are so fooled by the "news". F-22 going to Iraq is ALL about politics (internal politics between the USAF & the Secretary of Defense more so than politics between the US & Iran). Sec Gates knows FULL WELL what the F-22 can do & that if he allows the F-22 to deploy to Iraq then he will have to conceed that it IS useful for the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight & therefor there is justification under his own BS policy for the USAF to get more of them. But Gates wants the PUBLIC to be fooled into thinking that the F-22 is only useful in a WWIII/major world war vs near pear enemies so he can justify his BS desire to prevent the USAF from getting all the F-22s it NEEDS. Your understaning of the Iranian leadership is SEVERELY lacking. The Irania leaderships is MORE THAN just religiously motivated, religion DRIVES virtually everything they do. Ahmadinejad believes that his purpose for being is to bring forth the return of the 12th Imam & the "end of days" (& the Mullahs have ACTIVELY encouraged that) & that obtaining a nuclear weapon to "wipe Israel off the map" is the way to do it. Iran's interest in Iraq has more to do with religion & the belief that Iraq will be the seat of power once the world has been "cleansed" of all infidels than world/regional politics. To them, politics are simply a tool to further their religious beliefs. It is important to understand that the Iranian leadership actually WANTS the return of the 12th Imam & the "end of days" & they believe that by making it happen that they will be rewarded. Iran knows that the west does not want war & Iran sees that as a sign of weakness which emboldens them. Iran does not fear war with the west, they embrace war with the west as the way to bring forthe the return of the 12th Imam & the "end of days". Iran isn't earning a seat at the table in negotiations over the fate of Iraq & has no intentoin to unles it is at IT'S table & everyone is there to submit to THEIR will. Yes the the SecDef sets policy the DoD carries out BUT the problem is that Sec Gates' policies are NOT pro US defense! Yes when you hear things in the media about "generals want this" or "generals are upset about that" ect., these are often times carefully constructed leaks designed to influence you one way or the other in order to compel decision makers one way or another. That is why the news reports are that "Gates nixed the plans, citing the strategic danger from the deployment if it were misread by Iran". When those of us who happen to have a somewhat understanding (you really do need to look at much more than just one news report) recognize that IS NOT what it is REALLY about & that BS about Iran misreading it is the "cover".