Is there a good Reason that the U.S. hasn’t offered the F-15SE or the F-35?

OMG please visit code one and check out the small story.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news_item.html?item_id=224

Trade Ya My JSFs for 100 LRStrike: RUMOR

Trade Ya My JSFs for 100 LRStrike: RUMOR
By Colin Clark Thursday, October 21st, 2010 6:50 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy, Rumors

As pressure rises for the US to abandon overseas bases crucial to the U.S. ability to reach deep into China, Russia and other strategic locations, the service is growing increasingly hungry to buy a basket of long range strike capabilities.

Air Force officials say it would probably be a mix of platforms — manned and unmanned — and some of them will almost certainly be stealthy and they will boast a range of at least 1,800 miles. And they will be expensive. Why do the Air Force and so many estimable defense analysts believe the U.S must build a replacement for the B-52s and B-2 bombers?

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/21/trade-ya-my-jsfs-for-100-lrstrike-rumor/?wh=wh#ixzz137m7VQJD

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/10/21/trade-ya-my-jsfs-for-100-lrstrike-rumor/?wh=wh

🙁

Bf-2 hits mach 1.3

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14659.html

“Right” as in every fighter/fighterbomber should be carrier capable. Besides political-industrial games that was the reason the French left Eurofighter.

Agree that this is a choice that shouldn’t have to be made. Looking at what I think is HM’s 2020 tactical fleet – a total of around 180 jets (same number as France resp Germany) – and looking at potential war tasks I say keeping at least *something* on the carriers is more important than bombing Pashtuns with medium tactical low level bombers. As questionable as it is, the EF2k is here to stay. So the joice is a minor land-based gap or a total carrier-based gap. In the current situation I can rather live with a land-based gap.

What you wrote (I think it was you) about “wars of joice” is exactly right. I’m a fan of Byzantine politics – before mulling going to war against someone I want to see that there is an overall economic benefit. **** length contests about Islands in the South Atlantic or the Persians don’t count! In absence of political guideance and leadership the Armed Forces develop all kind of phantasies to keep their business going. Dangerous and misguided! There are things worth fighting for and preparing against – proxy wars with China in Africa for example – and expeditionary and mobile assets are more important than short-legged land based toys that will be retired within the next ten years anyway. That’s way Harrier (as a relative, not an absolute choice!).

If British citizens and British territory isn’t worth fighting for then what is?
And to take it further. what fool in there right minds with any tactical skill would let Saddam Hussein take control of the entire middle east oil supply?
Remember the 2nd war was a linger problem from the 1st. I’m sorry to burst your bubble but our way of life depends on energy weither you like it or not.
Now back to topic.