The US Air Force Now Wants to Keep the A-10, U-2, and F-15C

[Swordsmyth]

The U.S. Air Force plans to keep the A-10 Warthog and U-2 spy plane flying, reversing course after years of arguing that the service needed to retire the Cold War-era aircraft to pay for newer planes and drones.
The Air Force has also decided keep the F-15C fighter, a plane that generals had recently suggested was also on the chopping block (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/22/air-force-retire-f15cd-fighter-mid-2020s.html). The decisions were announced in the Trump administration’s first military budget request sent to Congress on Tuesday. Lawmakers are likely to support the plan since they have routinely added funds (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/25/house-legislation-restricts--10-retirement/83508968/) to save the A-10 and U-2 from retirement time after time (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-u2-spyplane-20150819-story.html) in recent years.

More at: http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/05/course-change-us-air-force-now-wants-keep-10-u-2-and-f-15c/138115/?oref=d-mostread

[TheCount]

More like the new military leadership has gotten the message and is telling the administration and Congress what they already want to hear.

[Swordsmyth]

More like the new military leadership has gotten the message and is telling the administration and Congress what they already want to hear.

The A-10 needs an upgrade, but it has no peers let alone rivals.

[TheTexan]

Why do we need those planes when we have F-22?

The F-22 looks way cooler IMO

I mean just look at it

http://media.techeblog.com/images/f-22-raptor.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

Why do we need those planes when we have F-22?

The F-22 looks way cooler IMO

I mean just look at it

http://media.techeblog.com/images/f-22-raptor.jpg

It can't touch the A-10 for ground attack.
The U-2 is a spy plane.
I don't know enough about the F15c.

[TheTexan]

It can't touch the A-10 for ground attack.
The U-2 is a spy plane.
I don't know enough about the F15c.

I dunno. The A-10 looks like it was designed in the 1960's

[TheTexan]

If the F-22 and F-35 are such failures that we're resorting to 50 year old technology

Then we need to start a new aircraft program and give them more budget this time so they can get it right IMO.

Preferably LMT should get the contract again.

[Swordsmyth]

If the F-22 and F-35 are such failures that we're resorting to 50 year old technology

Then we need to start a new aircraft program and give them more budget this time so they can get it right IMO.

Preferably LMT should get the contract again.

As far as I know the F-22 is great, but the A-10 is a Ground attack specialist, the F-22 is an air superiority specialist.
The A-10 needs a refit package with modern tech and new production lines but no replacement is necessary.

[TheTexan]

but no replacement is necessary.

I can think of a few hundred billion reasons why a replacement might be necessary.

[TheCount]

The A-10 needs an upgrade, but it has no peers let alone rivals.

You seem to be implying that is a good thing, and not that there's a reason why no other country in the world sees a need for a plane in that role.

The a-10 has not done the job that it was designed for since 1991, or on the very outside since 2003. It is a meme plane. The air force could replace it with something like the super tucano for drastic cost savings if they actually think we need a plane for that exclusive counter-goat-herd role.

[Swordsmyth]

You seem to be implying that is a good thing, and not that there's a reason why no other country in the world sees a need for a plane in that role.

The a-10 has not done the job that it was designed for since 1991, or on the very outside since 2003. It is a meme plane. The air force could replace it with something like the super tucano for drastic cost savings if they actually think we need a plane for that exclusive counter-goat-herd role.

The U.S. needs the best equipment available to perform it's Constitutional function to defend American Soil from neer-peer adversaries.
We should not be bombing goat herds overseas, we should be ready to atomize EU or Russian tanks in an invasion.

[TheTexan]

we should be ready to atomize EU or Russian tanks in an invasion.

+rep if russian tanks land in miami or LA we need to be prepared for that

[TheCount]

The U.S. needs the best equipment available to perform it's Constitutional function to defend American Soil from neer-peer adversaries.
We should not be bombing goat herds overseas, we should be ready to atomize EU or Russian tanks in an invasion.

EU or Russian tanks on domestic soil as part of an invasion... How, exactly? Neither entity has the assets necessary to transport their tanks to us. Russia can barely get a single aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean.

Even assuming that such a mythical risk actually existed, we would be better off spending our money on the Navy or planes that can be used against both ships and tanks. Again, not the a-10.

[Swordsmyth]

EU or Russian tanks on domestic soil as part of an invasion... How, exactly? Neither entity has the assets necessary to transport their tanks to us. Russia can barely get a single aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean.

Even assuming that such a mythical risk actually existed, we would be better off spending our money on the Navy or planes that can be used against both ships and tanks. Again, not the a-10.

Threats must be prepared for ahead of time.
Someday we might not rule the seas, Britain no longer does.

[TheTexan]

Threats must be prepared for ahead of time.
Someday we might not rule the seas, Britain no longer does.

Not to mention aliens, we should be prepared for that contingency also

[Swordsmyth]

Not to mention aliens, we should be prepared for that contingency also

If hostile aliens were known to exist, then yes. But they don't exist.

[r3volution 3.0]

The A-10 is the best close support aircraft.

The F-22 is the best air superiority fighter.

The F-35 is the best for Lockheed Martin's share price.

[CPUd]

They should probably go ahead and build some more F-14s for the new Top Gun movie.

[KEEF]

Why do we need those planes when we have F-22?

The F-22 looks way cooler IMO

I mean just look at it

http://media.techeblog.com/images/f-22-raptor.jpg
Is it farting rainbows? It is a unicorn killing machine. 'Merica Yeah!

[KEEF]

The A-10 is the best close support aircraft.

The F-22 is the best air superiority fighter.

The F-35 is the best for Lockheed Martin's share price.
The A-10 is the worst

The F-22 is the best

The F-35 is the One with a hairy chest.

[Swordsmyth]

The A-10 is the worst

The F-22 is the best

The F-35 is the One with a hairy chest.

The Good: F-22
The Bad: F-35
And
The Ugly(but still meaner than a junkyard dog) : A-10

[oyarde]

Why do we need those planes when we have F-22?

The F-22 looks way cooler IMO

I mean just look at it

http://media.techeblog.com/images/f-22-raptor.jpg
I was hoping I could buy about four A 10's at auction for 20 FRN's or so .

[Anti Federalist]

They should probably go ahead and build some more F-14s for the new Top Gun movie.

Now you're talking.

I've said this many times, if we're forever doomed to living in an authoritarian police state, well, damn it, let it be a manly one with cool movies and military parades with frog marching troops and phalanxes of missile batteries.

The numbing fog of matriarchal, post menopausal, hectoring, nagging Grundyism that is the modern AmeriKan nanny/safety state, is stultifying.

[surf]

there was a loud flyover of an f-18 "growler" in celebration of "military appreciation something" at last Saturday's Sounder game....

boy do I miss sequestration.

certainly I can see the point of those in favor of a robust air force and defense to protect our borders from those marauding Mexicans and pesky Canadians.

[nikcers]

The A-10 is the best close support aircraft.

The F-22 is the best air superiority fighter.

The F-35 is the best for Lockheed Martin's share price.

I dunno I think if I were the enemy I would be more afraid of the f-35 especially one that I could see. I think the whole thing with the f35 is that it has untested stealth technologies and is nuclear capable. I don't think the f35 is deisgned to be a dog fighter, I think its designed to drop WMDs from the air without any one being the wiser.

[jllundqu]

When I was in Iraq, the A-10 certainly had it's hands full. That Vulcan cannon is a mindblowing weapon with an unmistakable sound. It is a tank buster and can eliminate AA positions in seconds. It performs the CAS mission better than any aircraft IMO.

That being said. It is an ASSAULT aircraft. If the US would stop fucking illegally ASSAULTING other countries, this plane would cease to be of use and should rightly be retired. There are enough of these aircraft in the "airplane graveyard" that could quickly be retrofitted and made operational if such a DOMESTIC threat necessitated it.

[Brian4Liberty]

When I was in Iraq, the A-10 certainly had it's hands full. That Vulcan cannon is a mindblowing weapon with an unmistakable sound. It is a tank buster and can eliminate AA positions in seconds. It performs the CAS mission better than any aircraft IMO.

That being said. It is an ASSAULT aircraft. If the US would stop fucking illegally ASSAULTING other countries, this plane would cease to be of use and should rightly be retired. There are enough of these aircraft in the "airplane graveyard" that could quickly be retrofitted and made operational if such a DOMESTIC threat necessitated it.

Yep. That's why they like it. It fits the current "mission" perfectly. If the other side had an Air Force, then it wouldn't work so well.

[TheTexan]

If hostile aliens were known to exist, then yes. But they don't exist.

I think until we know, we should beef up our defense contracts with LMT just in case.

[TheTexan]

There are enough of these aircraft in the "airplane graveyard" that could quickly be retrofitted and made operational if such a DOMESTIC threat necessitated it.

The best defense is a good offense.


Speaking of that, we haven't nuked anyone in a while. Should get to it.

[Swordsmyth]

I think until we know, we should beef up our defense contracts with LMT just in case.
Waste Fraud and Corruption are a different question. One I am in complete agreement with your implied opinion on.

[r3volution 3.0]

I dunno I think if I were the enemy I would be more afraid of the f-35 especially one that I could see. I think the whole thing with the f35 is that it has untested stealth technologies and is nuclear capable. I don't think the f35 is deisgned to be a dog fighter, I think its designed to drop WMDs from the air without any one being the wiser.

They're not capable of dropping nuclear weapons, too heavy.

...except tactical weapons, but any 50s era fighter can do that.

As for stealth, well, we'll see (or not), but they seem to have trouble with flying in rain, so I have my doubts..

[nikcers]

They're not capable of dropping nuclear weapons, too heavy.

...except tactical weapons, but any 50s era fighter can do that.

As for stealth, well, we'll see (or not), but they seem to have trouble with flying in rain, so I have my doubts..

Any 50's era fighter has its own radar, untested stealth capabilities and B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb capable? The reports of people who actually fly the plane say its common to end up right behind people because they plan has so much stealth, and they get a 360' view around them. The f-35 flys higher and carries way more weight then what you think. There is an active campaign to make the f-35 seems shitty because we sell it to compete against Russia's plane at the same price point. The capabilities you get are way different though, the Russian planes are known to fall out of the sky, but that could be something we are arranging as well.

[r3volution 3.0]

B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb capable?

That's a small, tactical weapon dating to the early 60s.

Every US fighter built since that time is capable of carrying it.

[nikcers]

That's a small, tactical weapon dating to the early 60s.

Every US fighter built since that time is capable of carrying it.

With their own built in Radar system that upgrades the capabilities of every fighter around it. With a stealth system they have to attach fake transponders on because the stealth technology is so classified? I am sure there are lots of planes that can do vertical takeoffs, right? Or maybe there is an incentive for the American's to classifiy the upper end of our military technologies like the top speed of an SR71? Maybe we have an incentive to make it seem less powerful then our other planes so that we don't create some sort of arms race? Maybe we have to make the plane seem like its not as good as it is so that we can sell it for the same price as teh Russians sell there plane.

[Swordsmyth]

With their own built in Radar system that upgrades the capabilities of every fighter around it. With a stealth system they have to attach fake transponders on because the stealth technology is so classified? I am sure there are lots of planes that can do vertical takeoffs, right? Or maybe there is an incentive for the American's to classifiy the upper end of our military technologies like the top speed of an SR71? Maybe we have an incentive to make it seem less powerful then our other planes so that we don't create some sort of arms race? Maybe we have to make the plane seem like its not as good as it is so that we can sell it for the same price as teh Russians sell there plane.

If we're so obsessed with secrecy in regards to it's capabilities why would we sell them to Israel? you know the country that sold our AWACS plane to China?

[nikcers]

If we're so obsessed with secrecy in regards to it's capabilities why would we sell them to Israel? you know the country that sold our AWACS plane to China?
Either our intelligence agencies took over their government decades ago or theirs took over ours, you decide.

[r3volution 3.0]

With their own built in Radar system that upgrades the capabilities of every fighter around it.

Onboard radar is a feature of every fighter built worldwide for decades.

They're all already "networked" with each other.


With a stealth system they have to attach fake transponders on because the stealth technology is so classified?

Every new military technology is classified, doesn't mean it's revolutionary.

My money says the F-35 is an inferior platform to the F-22, but with newer avionics.

...which could, however, have been installed on the F-22, saving the massive development costs.


I am sure there are lots of planes that can do vertical takeoffs, right?

The Harrier, any helicopter, my pogo stick - so what?

That's what you call a bell or whistle.


Or maybe there is an incentive for the American's to classifiy the upper end of our military technologies like the top speed of an SR71? Maybe we have an incentive to make it seem less powerful then our other planes so that we don't create some sort of arms race? Maybe we have to make the plane seem like its not as good as it is so that we can sell it for the same price as teh Russians sell there plane.

Maybe Lockheed Martin likes money.

[Swordsmyth]

Either our intelligence agencies took over their government decades ago or theirs took over ours, you decide.

What about Turkey? They are hardly to be trusted.
Or do you think that they control us as well?
If we were obsessed with secrecy about the F-35 we would not sell them to anyone for 10-20 years. The F-22 is good enough for our allies and other customers.

[nikcers]

Onboard radar is a feature of every fighter built worldwide for decades.

They're all already "networked" with each other.

Search Results

Aircraft
Primary


F 22
U.S


F 35a
U.S


F 35b
U.S


F 35c
U.S

[r3volution 3.0]

Search Results



Aircraft

Primary


F 22

U.S


F 35a

U.S


F 35b

U.S


F 35c

U.S




I'm not sure what you mean..

Are you denying that fighters prior to the F-22 had onboard radar?

If so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-153

That's the onboard radar unit for the F-5.

The F-5 debuted in 1959.

British, French, Russian, and Chinese (i.e. knock-off Russian) fighters of the same era also had radar.

This is about as revolutionary as parachutes.

[nikcers]

I'm not sure what you mean..

Are you denying that fighters prior to the F-22 had onboard radar?

If so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-153

That's the onboard radar unit for the F-5 Phantom.

The F-5 debuted in 1959.
Yeah I am sure you can add one of those to a squad of fourth generation fighters and improve the capabilities of them. :rolleyes:. Look I am not denying its a waste of money, I wanted to hate it too, then I actually read about it. Most of the negative comments on it stem from people who fantasize about powerful jet engines, you're right the soviets did have better engines then ours, but we got to the moon right, theirs didn't. We even copied their moon design rockets for our rockets we use now. The software that we have though in our planes, the cutting edge technologies, make all the difference. Yeah Iran made a copy of our drone, but have you ever tried to emulate a ps3 game on your computer? I bet you can't do it, and if you can its going to be extremely inefficient and run like shit.

[Swordsmyth]

have you ever tried to emulate a ps3 game on your computer? I bet you can't do it, and if you can its going to be extremely inefficient and run like $#@!.

That is how the F-35's software runs.

[nikcers]

That is how the F-35's software runs.

That's what the media tells me so it must be true.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah I am sure you can add one of those to a squad of fourth generation fighters and improve the capabilities of them. :rolleyes:.

The F-22 is a fifth generation fighter, but yes you could.

That's why the F-16 (1970s design) is still the best fighter in the world (of those which exist in quantity).

That's why the Saudis and Israelis et al pay billions per year for upgrades.

If you want to put Sirius radio in a 1912 Rolls Royce, you don't have the company build you a new car, you just install the radio.

You could put modern avionics in a WWII era prop plane.

The only thing that's changed is the flying characteristics of the plane body itself, and stealth.

As to the former, the F-22 is better, period. As to the latter, it's all PR - no one really knows.

And the F-22 would have been cheaper, and quantity has a quality all it's own.

[nikcers]

What about Turkey? They are hardly to be trusted.
Or do you think that they control us as well?
If we were obsessed with secrecy about the F-35 we would not sell them to anyone for 10-20 years. The F-22 is good enough for our allies and other customers.
I am sure that other governments have their own moles in our cheese. How do you think they jumpstarted their nuclear programs?

[nikcers]

The F-22 is a fifth generation fighter, but yes you could.

That's why the F-16 (1970s design) is still the best fighter in the world (of those which exist in quantity).

That's why the Saudis and Israelis et al pay billions per year for upgrades.

If you want to put Sirius radio in a 1912 Rolls Royce, you don't have the company build you a new car, you just install the radio.

You could put modern avionics in a WWII era prop plane.

The only thing that's changed is the flying characteristics of the plane body itself, and stealth.

As to the former, the F-22 is better, period. As to the latter, it's all PR - no one really knows.

And the F-22 would have been cheaper, and quantity has a quality all it's own.
Yeah but its much harder to scare your population into a arms race or get them to fund your arms if the opposition builds 5 planes the media labels shitty versus 50 of "the most advanced fighter ever". I am sure you can even throw some of your upgraded parts in your shiny old box too. Its always good to upgrade your parts and put them in the old box if the box still works, I am sure we haven't seen the full capabilities of the f-35, but I hope we never have to.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah but its much harder to scare your population into a arms race or get them to fund your arms if the opposition builds 5 planes the media labels shitty versus 50 of "the most advanced fighter ever".

If you mean that's how McCain and other wholly-owned MIC subsidiaries justified the F-35 (and many other MIC boondoggles), you're right.


I am sure we haven't seen the full capabilities of the f-35, but I hope we never have to.

Well, that's what makes this whole debate somewhat academic..

In reality, if there's ever another war, a real war, where air superiority is actually in dispute, it'll probably go nuclear.

And then the only thing that matters is the several thousand ICBMs, each with a yield at least 10x Hiroshima.

And then the world ends.

:-/

[nikcers]

If you mean that's how McCain and other wholly-owned MIC subsidiaries justified the F-35 (and many other MIC boondoggles), you're right. Well, that's what makes this whole debate somewhat academic.. Yeah you're right saying our military tech sucks and can't compete with our opposition makes Americans empty their wallets. I guess I will just purely hope that somehow our opposition understands this, and doesn't think we have some secret cloaking technology that is capable of going into low earth orbit. I am sure if they think we have it they would gain the motivation to build it.

[r3volution 3.0]

P.S. A note on the purpose of conventional warfare in light of MAD

It may seem senseless to spend even $1 on conventional forces in light of the near-certainty that any real, hotly contested, conventional conflict between MAD states would result in nuclear apocalypse. But it isn't; conventional deterrence is part of nuclear deterrence. Suppose there are two MAD states, one with large conventional forces, and one with no conventional forces at all. The latter would be vulnerable to a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy. Suppose the conventionally strong state used its forces to seize one town: one little town. Is the conventionally weak state going to launch over this? No, of course not, as that would mean MAD, that would be insane; and the attacking state would know that, would not find any threat to launch credible, and thus would not be deterred. And so the conventionally stronger state would eat up the weaker state, piece by piece, for not ever crossing the nuclear threshold. This is the purpose of conventional military forces in the MAD age. If they're ever actually used in a real war with a MAD opponent, the world ends, but they serves to deter such a war, and have to be designed to do so: to defeat probing, "death by a thousand cuts" attacks. Any real war will escalate into apocalypse, and so their job is to ensure that any attack will become a real war and so escalate, in order to deter the attack in the first place.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah you're right saying our military tech sucks and can't compete with our opposition makes Americans empty their wallets. I guess I will just purely hope that somehow our opposition understands this, and doesn't think we have some secret cloaking technology that is capable of going into low earth orbit. I am sure if they think we have it they would gain the motivation to build it.

Not to worry, they don't have the money to build it.

Most of the world is still buying Soviet tech from the late 80s, repackaged and shiny (the Russians are good businessmen).

The only state remotely capable of threatening the US is China, and that not for a couple decades.

And the threat will be naval, not fighter jets, and it will start with the sinking of a CVN in the Taiwan Straight if we don't reform the navy.

[kpitcher]

Now you're talking.

I've said this many times, if we're forever doomed to living in an authoritarian police state, well, damn it, let it be a manly one with cool movies and military parades with frog marching troops and phalanxes of missile batteries.

The numbing fog of matriarchal, post menopausal, hectoring, nagging Grundyism that is the modern AmeriKan nanny/safety state, is stultifying.

Trump did want tanks and missile launchers in the inaugural parade.

Surprised this list doesn't include the F22. They're only a few hundred million each and they're not building any more.

Also not long ago the movies showed how a WW2 era battleship, manned by a handful of WW2 vets and modern combat soldiers, can stop an alien invasion. How much more manly can get you saving the world from aliens with an ancient battleship? Now if only it had been a good movie.

[r3volution 3.0]

Also not long ago the movies showed how a WW2 era battleship, manned by a handful of WW2 vets and modern combat soldiers, can stop an alien invasion. How much more manly can get you saving the world from aliens with an ancient battleship? Now if only it had been a good movie.

LOL

I love the old dreadnoughts (or the the old triple-deckers, for that matter), sightly vessels, but the airplane murdered them.

In the same way (though not yet recognized or appreciated), the submarine and the guided missile has murdered the aircraft carrier.

[TheCount]

Dear Air Force: You're not allowed to get rid of your A-10s, but we're not going to pay for wings for them.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/air-force-may-retire-a-third-of-active-a-10-warthogs-for-want-of-replacement-wings/

[Swordsmyth]

Dear Air Force: You're not allowed to get rid of your A-10s, but we're not going to pay for wings for them.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/air-force-may-retire-a-third-of-active-a-10-warthogs-for-want-of-replacement-wings/

"because the Air Force has not included orders for enough replacement wings in the service's budget request."

Same old story, the corrupt Air Force is trying to scuttle they A-10 so the can boondoggle a replacement we don't need, congress will probably make them take the money to repair the ones we have.

[Swordsmyth]

Dear Air Force: You're not allowed to get rid of your A-10s, but we're not going to pay for wings for them.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/air-force-may-retire-a-third-of-active-a-10-warthogs-for-want-of-replacement-wings/


"because the Air Force has not included orders for enough replacement wings in the service's budget request."

Same old story, the corrupt Air Force is trying to scuttle they A-10 so the can boondoggle a replacement we don't need, congress will probably make them take the money to repair the ones we have.

For a slightly different theory:

http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-provides-money-for-a-10-thunderbolt-wings-2017-6

"The committee chairman's draft of the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act includes $103 million (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/to-save-three-a-10-squadrons-from-retirement-house-lawmakers-authorize-103-million-for-new-wings?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Marine%20DNR%2006-27-17&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Marine%20Corps%20-%20Daily%20News%20Roundup) for an unfunded requirement related to the A-10 that the Air Force included in its budget request.

The $103 million, plus $20 million from this fiscal year, will go toward restarting production of A-10 wings to upgrade 110 of the Air Force's 283 Thunderbolts.
Defense experts told CNN earlier this month that the Air Force's inclusion of the A-10 wing money in its unfunded requirements was likely a ploy (http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-wants-congress-to-provide-more-money-to-keep-a-10s-in-air-2017-6) to get Congress to add money for the venerable Thunderbolt on top of the money apportioned for the service branch's budget request."

[Pericles]

EU or Russian tanks on domestic soil as part of an invasion... How, exactly? Neither entity has the assets necessary to transport their tanks to us. Russia can barely get a single aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean.

Even assuming that such a mythical risk actually existed, we would be better off spending our money on the Navy or planes that can be used against both ships and tanks. Again, not the a-10.

US tank production has been shut down, and the one factory factory remaining only does upgrades. It will take a two year lead time to be able to produce 4 tanks a day. It takes 8 years to build an aircraft carrier. The decision is made today as to what military capability the US will have 10 years from now. Undoubtedly, your crystal ball is clearer than mine, and you have a much better view of what the world will look like 10 years from now.

[Pericles]

Now you're talking.

I've said this many times, if we're forever doomed to living in an authoritarian police state, well, damn it, let it be a manly one with cool movies and military parades with frog marching troops and phalanxes of missile batteries.

The numbing fog of matriarchal, post menopausal, hectoring, nagging Grundyism that is the modern AmeriKan nanny/safety state, is stultifying.

And we need much better uniforms. At least the Marines are on the right track.

[Danke]

That's a small, tactical weapon dating to the early 60s.

Every US fighter built since that time is capable of carrying it.

It is both tactical and strategic.

[TheCount]

US tank production has been shut down, and the one factory factory remaining only does upgrades. It will take a two year lead time to be able to produce 4 tanks a day. It takes 8 years to build an aircraft carrier. The decision is made today as to what military capability the US will have 10 years from now. Undoubtedly, your crystal ball is clearer than mine, and you have a much better view of what the world will look like 10 years from now.

First, the Lima, Ohio plant has not shut down, it's still in operation.

Second, Russia can't even afford to build two dozen prototypes of its new tank, and the first unit isn't scheduled to be equipped with them until 2020. We're competing against a country that has to hope that someone else buys their weapons so that they themselves can afford them. Assuming that they manage to somehow produce an army of 21st century tanks, then they'll have to scrape together a fleet of some kind in order to transport their military over here. You think somehow we wouldn't notice?