F-35

[Nilsen]

The punitive measures taken torwards Russia would be a cost far higher then they would be willing to pay. Russia is a Ghost force compared to the days of the Cold War. NATO has them completely outclassed and they know it. So again, why would they even consider attacking Norway in the first place? Not for the cooking thats for sure.

We have Intel assets that would see an attack coming anyway.And since Ive been to Europe I know there aint there aint no "huge distances" about the place. Try driving from one end of Texas to another. Oslo to Berlin is 841 Klms from each other. Texas is 1,200 Klm wide.

Not saying they would attack... _thats my point_. Why buy that uber expencive F-35 for our needs when the only theoretical enemy around our parts would still overwhelm it by sheer numbers?

[PR3D4TOR]

Perhaps because you won't use them against the only theoretical enemy around your parts, but against a very real enemy in other parts of the world as part of a NATO/UN operation. If I recall correctly you guys sent about half a squadron's worth of F-16s to Italy to support NATO against Libya. Against Libyan air defenses the F-35 would be far safer to operate than any 4th gen fighter-bomber. Likely you will send aircraft to operate with NATO against many other 3rd world nations during the next 50 years, but only in small numbers. If, as you say, you won't stand a chance against the Russians no matter what aircraft you buy, then why not buy one that that works best in the military operations you actually do commit to?

[bozon]

For most of what was done in Libya a B17 with upgraded weapon guidance system would have been sufficient. Also, if half a squadron is all you gonna send, it makes no difference what you send.

As far as I recall, the last conflict involving a NATO nation that did not start with complete air superiority was the Falklands. Since then, even a serious SAM threat has not been met. Yes SAM threat was a concern in Iraq or Bosnia but nothing that really stopped or even slowed aerial operations. There is such a thing as too good weapons. You do not need to upgrade from an assault rifle to a death ray if you fight men with spears. As long as you can maintain a clear advantage having an even greater advantage gives little return an the money and development are better spent on other weapon technologies in which your relative advantage is not as high.

[Nilsen]

Perhaps because you won't use them against the only theoretical enemy around your parts, but against a very real enemy in other parts of the world as part of a NATO/UN operation. If I recall correctly you guys sent about half a squadron's worth of F-16s to Italy to support NATO against Libya. Against Libyan air defenses the F-35 would be far safer to operate than any 4th gen fighter-bomber. Likely you will send aircraft to operate with NATO against many other 3rd world nations during the next 50 years, but only in small numbers. If, as you say, you won't stand a chance against the Russians no matter what aircraft you buy, then why not buy one that that works best in the military operations you actually do commit to?

F35 is overkill for the operations on libya, serbia afghanistan and any other third world nation UN/NATO decides to reform or help. The F16 is and was more  than capable of performing its tasks. The other options are far from useless dated airframes yet they may end up costing half. We need to spend our defence budget on other areas and many of the generals and admirals feel the same way. The choise of F35 had a lot to do with politics.