This time Syria provided the opportunity for a most asinine point:
Why?
Because this is a TLAM show. That's how, if it happens, the US is likely to strike Syria. There are 5 destroyers loaded with Tomahawk missiles off the coast of Syria for a reason.
Funny stuff, but an indicator of how bankrupt the arguments against the F-35 have become.
Graff
As the military is considering what assets it may need to conduct a potential strike on Syria, the most advanced and most expensive weapons system history will be watching from a hanger.Anyone know what other aircraft will be sitting this one out? Yup, the F-22 Raptor. And likely most other fighters.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a do-it-all fighter for three service branches that is estimated to cost in total $395.7 billion, is simply not ready to fly into combat, despite promises from the Department of Defense early in the program.
Why?
Because this is a TLAM show. That's how, if it happens, the US is likely to strike Syria. There are 5 destroyers loaded with Tomahawk missiles off the coast of Syria for a reason.
Funny stuff, but an indicator of how bankrupt the arguments against the F-35 have become.
Graff
This goes hand in hand with ELP's continued tirade about 'no go to war systems'. Critics are grasping at straws.
ReplyDeleteArguing that the F-35 is ineffective because it won't be involved in whatever Syrian intervention is planned in the near future is like arguing that the B-2 is ineffective because it wasn't involved in the Gulf War...
ReplyDeleteOr like arguing that the P-80 Shooting Star was ineffective because it wasn't involved in the Battle of Okinawa...
ReplyDeleteOr like arguing that the F-6 Skyray was ineffective because it wasn't involved in the Korean War...
Or like arguing that the F-14 Tomcat was ineffective because it wasn't involved in the Vietnam War...
Or like arguing that the F-22 is ineffective because it wasn't involved in the initial invasion of Iraq (2003)...
Wow, it seems SO easy to argue that a combat aircraft is ineffective if you claim that the fact it wasn't used in combat prior to *actually entering service* is grounds for it being "ineffective"!
You and I understand that. Sadly, certain critics never will, because that doesn't fit their chosen narrative.
Delete