re: #349 ProGunLiberal

The V-22, at least to me belongs in the same category as the F-22 and the F-35. Costly boondoggles.

They were there for a joint exercise with the Moroccans, which we do yearly. We are there to help the readiness of a close allies under-equipped military, not to have our own crap decide to fuck up and kill people.

Disagree.

The big thing about the Osprey is that it is a game-changer at the tactical logistics level. As to ‘at an exercise’, I hated it when training accidents killed people, but it does happen. Also, as of right now we don’t know if it was aircraft or pilot (or external circumstances) that caused the crash.

As to the F-22 and F-35, I’m mixed. I lean to agreement with the f-22 but not the f-35. At the same time I get peeved when all the blame lands on the military for cost overruns instead of congressional acts like changing the numbers order and delaying procurement timelines and adding/changing requirements…

fwiw, the F-22 is an outstanding fighter, able to outfight six to ten modern aircraft in anyone else’s inventory. There are major advantages to this. The downside is it is subject to what I call the superman syndrome. Superman has total local superiority, but he cannot be everywhere. And where he is not, the normal bad guys are good enough. When our F-22 has 6:1 superiority but is outnumbered 12:1 because of the cost restraints, we have a problem.

The f-35 is not quite as good as the F-22, but it’s significantly less expensive. And, it turns out, much more flexible in operational design. That last is partly intentional, partly serendipitous because of the intent. That is, it was intended to have three models, one of which was the jump-jet for the marines. The need to have that much flexibility actually increased other operational flexibility. I have a sneaking suspicion the F-35 is going to gain a reputation - a good one - due to the variations it can handle.