pluto77189You are comparing the F-22’s range to the strike eagle. The Strike Eagle is not an anir superiority fighter, it’s a bomber, and is outfitted with huge conformal fuel tanks.
The F-22’s range unrefueled, on internal tanks is very impressive. Especially considering the payload of 8 missles it’ll be carrying. For deep strike missions, it will probably have 2 Aim-120’s, 4 SDB’s, and 2 Sidewinders internally, plus 2-4 external fuel tanks. When it nears enemy territory, it’ll drop the tanks and pylons, leaving it nice and clean.
the real utility of the F-22 is the capability to get in enemy territory quickly and undetected, and drop bombs where nothing else is able to drop them. It’s main purpose is air superiority, but I feel it’s going to be used more in the “F-117” type role. The F-22 can do the same mission(though dropping SDB’s in place of the 2,000 pound “overkillers” the F-117 uses), but do it faster. It’ll be able to do more sorties, because of speed. To top it off, it can kill any enemy that gets in it’s way-something the F-117 wasn’t, and isn’t ever going to do.
It can perform a strike mission while maintaining air-superiority. Slow stealth isn’t something you want to risk over a target filled with those new, nasty russian SAMs. Onlty something hard to see moving very fast has a snowball’s chance in hell of hitting those SA-XX’s before they get off a shot.
pluto77189As long as th eF-22 is kept healthy, I’m not worrying too much. It’s far too advanced to be cut. An f-35 has yet to fly. Rumsfeld did a phenominal job of planning and executing the war in Iraq. He did a pretty bad job there after major combat was over. I think Rumsfeld was brilliant in planning the war, but I think he’s making a mistake on cutting the Raptor.
The F-22 is going to be more useful than the F-35. The F-35 can’t do everything the 22 can, but the 22 can do more than the 35, and do it faster, and deeper in enemy territory. Plus, it’s develoment costs are paid for(and many of them helped out in the F-35 development as well).
Hopefully, these cuts will be temporary. I cannot see the Air force allowing it’s replacement for the F-15 to be limited to under 200. They won’t be happy if they have to replace Eagles with JSF’s instead of Raptors. The JSF is not an air superiority/deep strike aircraft, it’s a harrier/F-16 replacement.
I think Rumsfeld did well, and should be commended for his job in planing/ carryng out the war. Under the circumstances, he had to fight the war then with what he had available. He may not have had all the rescourrces he wanted to prevent the current situation, but I do think mistakes were made that could have been prevented. As a result, cuts to future needs are necessary in order to secure current needs. I like Rumsfeld, and I don’t think anyone could have done a better job given the resources available at the time(the war). However, I think he’s made many mistakes since the end of major combat. The way he’s going about cutting things makes me want to see a replacement after year 5.
I just really think the Air force is going to regret it if they don’t have a good number of F-22’s. The JSF is “transformational”? How is that, because it looks like a friggin transformer? I feel it is obvious why. It has a huge international need,as well as the Navy and Marines. The F-22 is AF only. I believe the cuts to the F-22 vs. JSF are political. the F-35 is not cheaper–yet. It might be, but we really don’t know. I also do not feel that it is economical to compare prices. IF the JSF is half the price, doe s that mean 2 F-35’s equal 1 F-22? for Air superiority, or deep strike missions, I’d take the F-22 over the 2 F-35’s. Faster, stealthier, and a better fighter to boot.
I hate it that I have to take sides. I feel the F-22 is more important to the security of the nation. I also don’t want to see the F-35 get cut.
Here’s my prediction: F-22’s will take the role of the F-117 in future conflicts. first strike fighters. they drop the first bombs and shoot the first AAM’s. F-35’s will probably hit lower priorirty targets, closer to the front. After the first couple of nights, you’ll see very FEW F-35’s in a clean configuration. They’ll be as loaded as an F-16, and about as stealthy as one too. They’ll be bomb trucks dropping cluster bombs. The F-22’s will do the real “stealth ” work dropping SDB’s on high-priority targets, and will probably always fly clean.
It’s strange. The f-22’s are pretty much finished, as in ready for sale. You want one? The price is $X. That’s how much it costs to buy one, we build more, the price goes down. The F-35’s price could go anywhere. They haven’t finished the development, so there’s no set price. For all we know, with inflation and delays, cuts in orders and complications, the F-35’s might end up costing nearly as much as the F-22’s.
pluto77189Your version of history seems somewhat at odds with actuality, pluto.
According to this US news source: “Osama bin Laden, Saudi-born millionaire turned Islamic terror chieftain, has been on the radar of the United States since the days when both he and the CIA were fighting the Soviet Army in Afghanistan.” (My bold text for emphasis).
Don’t argue with me – argue with NBC.
Oh, and guess which future US President made his first million with an oil company partly funded by the Bin Laden family?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That doesn’t say we funded him. It is true we were fighting the same enemy. We only funded the Afghans, not the Arabs. We probably weren’t upset that they were there killing soviets, but we did not fund them.
I’m sure the Bin Laden family had money in many oil-associated companies. they are billionares, and oil was their buisness as well. There’s nothing wrong with that alone. There’s no reason to try to deny it, the Bin Ladens were(and are still today) considered a respectable family. I’ve got some members of my family that should be put to death for some things they have done. While they may shame us, it doesn’t mean we’re “bad”.
pluto77189We didn’t supply Osama bin Laden. we supplied the Afghan fighters in their fight against Russia. These were the SAME fighters/peoples we fought with in Afghanistan.
We did not supply Arab fighters who were flocking into the country to fight Russians. The Afghan mujahadeen were not one and the same with the Arab mujahadeen, osama for example.
pluto77189Usually, these crash on take-off things are caused by something really catestrophic. That’s usually a really REALLY major pilot F’up, or a reall REALLY major groundcrew F’up. Hopefully it’ll be a simple major mistake, and not a cryptic design problem. User error is easy to prevent, design flaw means we won’t be seeing them operational in 05 like planned.
pluto77189I wouldn’t say christmas candle, more like vaporized jet fuel, flames, and spinning turbines against a runway all at several hundred mph.
pluto77189I was thinking the same thing. The wrecks look similar, though this one really burned out. They seem to have landed pretty flat. After the fire, I’m impressed that the thing is still recognizable. Even the tail structure is intact. You don’t get an appreciation for how well they build aircraft when they impact the ground at high speed and go straight in. Just fire and scraps.
It’ll be a while before we find out exactly “why” this happened. An F-18 went in at the local airport a few months back, and that took months for them to answer. An F-16 vsomehow strafed a school in NJ months ago, and they just NOW said how it happened(Pilot intended to fire a laser, accidentaly fired his M61)
pluto77189They’ve been flying the F-22 since what, 97? The YF-22 for longer than that. the YF-22 went in for pilot induced poccilations, and was still in good shape for a crash.
I’m surprised they havent had problems before, the complexity of the aircraft considered.
Seeing the “Raptor Crashes” topic, I knew I was going to see Europeans “gloating” over the fact. Why be so blatently anti-american-beacause-of-jealosy? It’s a remarkable aircraft, as are the typhoon, the Su-37, rafale. But it’s American, so you gloat. Because America is the “biggest and richest”, and on “top”, etc., so you shout with glee when something negative happens. Pisses me off when I see this sort of reaction.
I hate it on all levels. Idiot Ford fans will cheer when they see a chevy Nascar car crash, stupid.
If the F-22 was not an american design, you would not be so cheery about an incident like this. And you know it.
It’s similar(although on a MUCH smaller, less significant scale than) to the few people all over the world that were happy on 9-11. they were not muslim, necessarily, but they were happy to see America attacked, simply because we had it coming.”
Keep up the ignorant remarks about insignificant things like this, but don’t complain when some Americans get fed up with you.
Some Americans are JUST going to see the few people that seem to take enjoyment out of a tragic airplane crash, simply beacuse it’s an american designed fighter. (considering it’s initial design was to help protect much of Europe from the threat of Soviet bomber attacks, I find some irony in their remarks)
Don’t say stupid stuff like that, even on the internet, it’s insulting, and makes others look bad.
pluto77189And thank God Isreal did what it did back then. Even the US was pissed at them. Imagine what would have happened if that madman had that thing working in the mid 80’s? I’m glad I DON’T have to think about it.
pluto77189It’s not made for destroying ICBM’s and ICBM’s only. The main point is to destroy medium range ballistic missles, like scuds. Things that might be used to hit our troops, bases, assets in a conflict zone. It’s more than likely a working testbed, to prove it can work. By the time this thing is operational, they’ll have solid state lasers out performing chemical lasers. Then they can make a much smaller, more practicle vehicle, maybe even an orbital platform.
Personally, I think they’re not coming clean as to the main purpose of this thing.
If they mount an E-3 radar on it, it becomes an AWACS with a “kill” button. I think they’re going to use this for anti air mor than ABM.
Another thing they try to neglect is the “inherent” asat ability of the ABL. If it can damage an aircraft at 200 miles(which is the max range for aircraft{smaller than missles}) through the atmosphere, it can shoot 200 miles up through space, thorugh much thinner air. It may not have the punch to destroy a sattelite outright, but a few kilowatts of coherent radiation should do enough to the sensative instruments on a spy satt to put it out of commission–and a whole lot cheaper and simpler than the pegasus boosted ASAT they messed with in the 80’s.
pluto77189I wonder if that’s related to the famous “bloop” that the Navy’s heard. I thought that was in the Atlantic, though. Supposedly, it sounds like an animal, but nothing heard before, and much MUCH larger than anything. the sound is supposedly so loud, that it must have come from something larger than a blue whale.
They hear it occationally when listening for Russian Subs.
pluto77189No no no. Different case. Same situation, different cases. This just shows that the insurgents have been faking death, and shooting/exploding at the soldiers as they passed. It just brings a bit more light onto the reason the marine in the other case felt threatened by someone faking death.
pluto77189THIS is why he was right to kill that wounded insurgent.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1248394.htm
Things like this have happened on an daily basis over there. The life of yourself, and that of your fellow soldier is not something you take a chance with.
pluto77189Perhaps Pluto77189 would be kind enough to let us know to which planet it is that he’s referring?
>>>>>>>>>>
I dont’ get it. I am not discussing causes for the war. That is established. We all know we’re going to get nowhere talking about the justification for it. Me: yes, You: no. that’s it.
I am referring to why we are fighting them NOW. The main “war” is over, we removed the threat Saddam posed. Now,we’re fighting to make sure Iraq is rebuil in a manner that will improve the lives of everyone. The reason we started the war, and the reason we’re fighitng it now are related, that’s for sure, but not exactly the same. We COULD leave it be and will have accomplished the goal–no saddam. If we wan tto keep the place safe, and prevent any future threats, we have to fight to make sur eIraq is a succesful country.
So now, we’re fighting FOR IRaq’s future, WITH the Iraqi military, AGAINST people who want to prevent Iraq’s progress.
pluto77189Like I said earlier, the Iraqis that we’re talking about were fighting against other Iraqis. So, we have Iraqis fighting other Iraqis. One group wants to maintain the past order of things, tyrannical dictatorship, oppression, rule by fear. The people that fight along sid ethem are foreigners, from other muslim countries. these Iraqis and their allies target and kill civilians, Iraqi police, and Iraqis in general–especially unarmed Iraqis.
The other Iraqi fighters are backed by the majority of the Iraqi populace. They simply attack the armed insurgents, Iraqi or foreign. They have tried to maintain order. They are fighting alongside American, British, Polish, and Australian troops.
So tell me, how is it in your mind that the insurgents are “not insurgents” because it’s “their country”? In essence, many of them are not insurgents, they are terrorists, or foreign invaders, to put it lightly. The Iraqis that fight against the Iraqi gov. and Coalition are, by definition, Insurgents. You basically have to be from a place to be considered an insurgent/rebel. That’s really what the word means…
The majority of the people/government want to proceed towards goal:A(democracy)
The group of people(a minority) that want to pursue goal:B(Saddamish state of things) are an insurgency. THEY are rebelling against the government/majority/most of Iraq.
You give these terrorists and insurgents the same status as the Iraqis they are fighting against, simply because the insurgents are fighting against the US!
You DO realize that in a battle, when there is a threat(especialy when dealing with people that suicide bomb themselves), generally you just make sure everyone is dead, don;’t you? You don’t shoot, then go around to tend to the enemy wounded. You shoot, and keep shooting till nothing moves. If it does, you shoot again. If you take chances, you end up dead, like what happened to these guys the day before.
As for what my friend encountered in Iraq. The fact that you people cannot understand why the guy (in the street with the AK) was shot clearly shows you have zero understanding of what war is. If you are in a war, in battle, and someone has a gun, and won’t drop it/move, etc. you kill them. It’s them or you, and for you, you’re more important.
I love it when I see Europeans think that America is a brainwashed bunch of ignorants.
Remember, more than 60 MILLION people VOTED for Bush–they went out of their way to vote. Far more support him, but did not vote. If it goes the same for the population(51%), that’s 200 MILLION bush supporters in the US–more that the entire population of France, Germany and Britain combined, I believe.
And we’re ALL Dumb? Europeans are just smarter and more worldly than Americans? All of us? Just because we’re one country dons’t mean we’re a smaller population. There’s about as many of us that think WE’RE right as there are of Europeans that think YOU’RE right.
I think you are wrong. Your way of life is different, your values are different. Your understanding of the way things will pan out is different. I think MY philosiphy is right, and your is wrong. End of story.
I always get the impression from Europeans that they can only explain the differences by claiming Americans are stupid, out of touch, and brainwashed/uneducated. To us, this seems like elitism, and we don’t like it.
If it were a “you are wrong, we believe” mentality, that would be fine. When we get Europeans insulting our mental prowess, simply because we disagree, we get ****ed. Do you think the american consumers stopped buying French products because France disagreed with US policy, or because we saw French people calling Americans ignorant war mongering nazi powergrubbing imperialists?
France doesn’t send troops–Fine with me. French people desicrate the graves of US an dBritish dead at normady–No brie, normandy butter, or french wine for me. Multiply that feeling by a few million, and you have yourself a boycott. What do the same french people say? “The ignorant americans have been instructed to not buy French goods by George bush”
See my point?
Sign In
