For the Google impared:
In real terms 8-11 Burkes will be more useful than the 3-4 DDG-1000s they’ll be replacing. Think back to the Spruance/Ticonderoga classes. The Spruances (DDG-1000) had minimal air defense capabilities but provided the hull for the later, more capable Ticonderoga (CG-21) class. The Burkes are multimission ships whereas the DDG-1000s are not. What would DDG-1000 bring to the party that new Burkes wouldn’t? Well, 155mm guns instead of 127mm guns. And some fancy radars. That’s about it, and those will continue on assuming the CG-21 doesn’t get killed as well. The better comparison though is what advantage would ONE DDG-1000 have over TWO Burkes.

SOC points out the slim chances of the F-22 line being extended (we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that) BUT Russian agression has shown that those who’d circled the campfire for a round of Kumbya were sadly premature, and equally the folly of thinking we’ll only be fighting people living in caves for the rest of eternity.

Proof? Do you see anybody clamoring for “we need a stealth attack helicopter” these days? Nope.

It’s obvious. Like asking to prove there is oxygen in the air.

See here:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83647

Beating around the bush are we? 😀

Fact is, the US can’t afford that stuff, period. Which was my original point.

Why? You don’t know how to use it? If it was something obscure I’d help you out. It’s not so you’re on your own. That and I don’t really give a $hit if you believe it or not.

No one here but Scooter would believe it lol . . . :rolleyes:

Google is your friend.

So . . . no.

I doubt Russia will be cheering about us buying 8-11 more Burkes instead of more DDG-1000s.

That’ll change thanks to our good friends the Russians. They just pulled off the best F-22 marketing campaign possible. :diablo:

Nobody misses it. (My only gripe is they had to spend $15 billlion to figure that out. )

They have no choice as long as Putin controls the valve on the air hose.

A better move is the big radar in the Czech Republic (and another going in in Israel), missiles in Poland, and maybe some SM-3s for Israel (Block IIs would be even better.) Force Russia to spend all it’s money on weapons at the expense of it’s people. Just like the good old days. I’ll bet there are some who can’t wait for the bread lines to form for the full effect. :diablo:

Evidence for any of this? 😀

I agree absolutely that this could be a dramatic win-win for Russia – with just the one caveat. They only get to do it the once. They’ve swatted a weak Georgia’s forces and exerted their authority. Problem is that they’ve been seen to be willing to exploit the situation. Rebuilding Georgia’s forces to a point where they will not be so easy to ‘swat’ next time is going to be seen as a good, relatively ‘painless’, move for NATO that probably is going to be careful to keep its forces outside of that ‘confrontation’ role.

Obviously I’m not suggesting Georgian F-22’s here, but, castoff units like the first half-dozen of Germany’s Gepard class FAC(M)s, being replaced by the new B-class corvettes, could be very easily and inexpensively provided to the Georgian Navy and would have the effect of not only replacing what the Russians destroyed, but, ramping up their combat capability by several orders of magnitude. Nothing that will forestall a full-effort Russian attack, but, something that will oblige the Russians to make a significant effort to oppose. That kind of effort across the board means that the Russians must either be willing the draw the saber, rather than a half-hearted rattling being sufficient, to be able to replicate their apparent successes seen here.

If there’s ever a South Ossetia War #2, and the Georgians are really “built up” – then you can safely assume Russia is simply going to preemptive strike like the US did in Iraq, meaning the Georgian fleet is going to sink in port, and the Georgian military / air bases will get saturated by cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles.

All they are going to do with any buildup is waste a little more of the Russian MoD’s money on stand-off weapons.

No, but there were far fewer Soviet than US bombers, & even fewer with the range to reach the USA. The USA didn’t need SAMs everywhere. BTW – when did Tu-22 get the range to bomb the USA?

The Backfire and Bear could easily reach the US, what are you saying? Especially the Backfire with refueling. :confused:

Then of course came the Blackjack.

Totally Wrong, Only countries in the west bar the US that really developed long range SAM’s were UK, France, Sweden and the Swiss (both neutrals). US SAM development equalled all of the above combined near as damm it. US covered by a massive number of SAM sites (Nike Ajax / Hercules – Bormarc) plus two good systems on ships (Talos and Terrier), plus HAWK for the Field Army. British had Sea Slug (Naval), Thunderbird (Field Army) and Bloodhound (Fixed site / Semi Moblie). French, Sweden and the Swiss had their own systems in development, but in the end went for US/UK systems in the shape of Hawk (Swedish Army / French Army) and Bloodhound (Swedish Air Force / Swiss Army). Everybody else got US systems. USSR went for SAMs in a big way because of the area of airspace they had to protect. US canned US based SAMs due to the fact Soviets didn’t have the bombers, but ICBMs. Stinger is a US missile by the way.

Right, the Tu-95 and Tu-22 were all a myth?

They just relied on using fighters/interceptors for protection against bombers, from what I could tell.