So which European country are we going to war with? We got into it pretty good with France and Germany over Iraq, but shots were never fired. Is there a secret oil stash under Hamburg that you think Bush is going to try and take? Having political differences is one thing, but differences severe enough to precipitate a shooting war is another thing entirely. For that matter, US foreign policy has the potential to change every four years as well.

i just knew that you would take that paranoid interpretation, just read again the post, is more clear…………………for you

Compared to what?

support, ready-time, cuantify of plataforms in the air, ariframe cost per missile launched

All sarcasm aside the numerical point still stands-who has the numbers to oppose us in sufficient strength that we need massive numbers of F/A-22s?

Nobody.

isnt sarcasm, numerical advantage is important if you want a effective BVR war and avoid dogfights, because the missiles will fail, and in a big proportion, is not if the USAF needs more F22s, is about if they need more air-launchers plataforms…something that can be fixed with the f35 -we must see-, but anyway the performance of the raptor as plataform is still veeeery poor (in a global view).

If you fire a missile at Mach 1.5 and 30,000 feet, it will go farther than if you fire it at Mach 0.9 and 30,000 feet

so?????, the point here is if you need to sustain that M1.5

both janes an venik are the same, both are ignorance fans sources,but janes have more time in the bussisnes, first try to undersand how works a plane, what is the behavior at heigh, super-subsonic, etc, then come to talk and discuss, this again become endless

The design meets or exceeds all of the required program goals

yeah sure….nice tax-sucking advertising…

i hate janes and veniks, both in the same level, because induce the people to talk like zombies instead to take a technic disscusion

about the SC-BVR relation, man thats not true, to impart kinetic energy you need only high instantaneus Vo

ahhhhh the f22 airfans are angry…ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

:rolleyes: ahhhh SOC, man i will answer only the question about the exhausts, there isnt case in the others.

the b2 engines have muuuuuchhhhhh lower power than the f22, also the final exhaust area is much bigger, because the engine-exhaust pass its inclinated to upwards, and also every engine pair has a decent distance,, btw that dont mean that the b2 is superstealth, but yes, the IR-RCS signal is reduced,so dont be ridicoulus….

Well when you have the best car on the block, by an astronomical margin, the price can be overlooked.

the problem is that you dont have that astronomical margin, even isnt proprtional with the costs :rolleyes:

ahhhhhh, i see above the ignorance in action….

rectangular nozzles have nothing to do with stealth (at least if dont have a huge diffusion chamber-with the consecuencies), but are simpler to control in 2D movement, the russians also experimented with rectangular sistems, but it seens that they had problems with the excesive temperature-turbulence flow increase (by the relative transverse area induced by the surfaces movement)

about the f22 SC, well the original raptor had an better SC wing, but perhaps (perhaps, because i had disscused with other guys about that), the boeing team discovered some problems in the low speed agility, specialy against the new generation planes, like the EF or new flankers, so to improve the low speed handling they sacrificed some of SC with a new delta, with a lower SC speed, you canot have all…

the su27 high instantaneus AoA is basically an aerodynamic propiety, that mean, the aero-design “let” to do that angle under control (obviusly increasing the stick force), and is nothing to do with TVC, now TVCs could help to perform some maneuvres, but remember that vectorial controls has also their limitations (like energy-power output limits), its obvious that at very low speed any, aaaaannnnyyyyyyy plane can reach a nice sustained AoA with TVCs

and SOC, man thats other thread…..