Skip to comments.
Should The F-22 be cancelled?
26-nov,2004
| Me
Posted on 11/25/2004 6:44:38 PM PST by Haro_546
Yes. This type of aircraft has no place in the modern battlefield and Foreseeable conflicts. The money could be put into more usefull sistems (each unit cost about $235 million for 239 planes) Whats your opinion?
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: airforce; duersdrool; f22; foxmuldermark; freepersrule; imaduer; kerrylover; tinfoilhatter; troll; ufo; xfiles; yes; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 621-636 next last
To: Haro_546
Yes. The F/A-22, however, should continue apace.
To: Haro_546
WHo are you to make such a well informed comment as such??? Are you on the tip of the spear??? How do you think the bombs/missles get deployed to theater???
122
posted on
11/25/2004 7:30:14 PM PST
by
RedlegCPT
(Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl)
To: A.A. Cunningham
So, F-35 will not be canceled??
Which one will be out first the 35 or 22? When will they be out?
To: Haro_546
Due to the commonality and modularity of the F-22/F-35 the latter is in fact a naval variant of the F-22. The F-35 is cheered and geared for a primary air to ground focus with air to air being a secondary role. I can't help but imagine there will be a number of craft modified for a primary air to air role. If you can't protect the fleet you can't bust the ground with ships on the bottom.
124
posted on
11/25/2004 7:30:40 PM PST
by
em2vn
To: Haro_546
My main point against the F-22 are it cost too much, it will be obsolete before we use it, the money saved can be put to better use That's exactly how President Reagan drove the Soviets into bankruptcy.
Hope the yen does as well as the ruble...
/john
125
posted on
11/25/2004 7:31:31 PM PST
by
JRandomFreeper
(D@mit! I'm just a cook. Don't make me come over there and prove it!)
Comment #126 Removed by Moderator
To: mad_as_he$$
Two words..."China threat".
We will need the F-22.
127
posted on
11/25/2004 7:32:40 PM PST
by
lawdog
To: Tailback
It is the prime directive of all military programs that they are obsolete before going operational. I believe this happened about 1987. The F15 was a giant leap forward when it was introduced. But since then the cutting edge of technology is significantly ahead of military acceptance and implementation. During GW1 I personally purchased and shipped 100 GPS units to the troops on ground. This (the satellites)is/was a Pentagon program that was not at that time fully implemented in the ARMY. Crazy, why didn't every soldier there have a GPS. Only recently has the Army implemented full GPS capability in some units. The universal soldier is real and available - the military isn't ready yet - mindset or arrogance you pick.
128
posted on
11/25/2004 7:33:12 PM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
(Off to the store for Marlboro reds and Miller High Life. NSDQ)
To: forYourChildrenVote4Bush
"Isn't the F-35 the plane that was supposed to be used on aircraft carriers (It could take off vertically??)?" Yes, it WAS. Unfortunately, it has become too heavy to do so with a useful weapon/fuel load.
"Can the f22 be modified for aircrafts or will they keep the f18?"
The F-22 CANNOT be modified for carrier duty. The Navy will keep the F-18 variants for the time being. There's rumors afoot, though.
"F-35 is the one that had multiple countries joining in its development? I always thought that the F-35 was further ahead than the f22."
Yes to the first part, no to the second. The F-22 has been in development for 20+ years, and there are many flying, fully-capable aircraft now. The F-35 has only a couple of prototypes with different engines/systems.
129
posted on
11/25/2004 7:33:39 PM PST
by
Long Cut
(The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
To: tuckunderbreak
And I appreciate the Squids that flew/fly them. Folks that land on carrier decks are special people.... Very Special.
Best wishes from a zoomie.
/john
130
posted on
11/25/2004 7:34:44 PM PST
by
JRandomFreeper
(D@mit! I'm just a cook. Don't make me come over there and prove it!)
To: Haro_546
How can you possibly like an aircraft that has killed more of our solders before it even gets produced than the F22?
I, along with many others, are questioning your rationale.
F22's are vital to the mission and you need to read the other posts. The F22 is part of a team that feeds off one another and is not as effecient alone.
Besides those are ESTIMATED costs and don't get sucked into the $900 hammer arguement. Once these birds are in full production and more models start emerging the cost is greatly reduced. The last model that does everything under the sun is less expesive than the first one ever built that barely flies.
131
posted on
11/25/2004 7:35:06 PM PST
by
Cyclone59
(is your glass half full, half empty or a vast misallocation of resources?)
To: em2vn
The Fleet could be protected by SAMs in cruisers,other naval platforms, and the carrier planes. I don't know if the f-22 will be modified for carriers.
132
posted on
11/25/2004 7:35:43 PM PST
by
Haro_546
(Christian Zionist)
To: Haro_546
Yes cancel it, lets spend our money on "flying spitwads".
To: Haro_546
Oh, and I forgot to mention in my other post..... You have to spend money to defend against it.... Regardless of how good or bad it is.
And the B-52s keep on flying...
/john
134
posted on
11/25/2004 7:37:36 PM PST
by
JRandomFreeper
(D@mit! I'm just a cook. Don't make me come over there and prove it!)
To: Haro_546
Like I ALWAYS say, 14, 15, 16...whatever!
To: Cyclone59
My point is that there better uses for that money than an obsolete aircraft. The army could be expanded, money for missile defense is needed as well, etc.
136
posted on
11/25/2004 7:38:01 PM PST
by
Haro_546
(Christian Zionist)
To: Long Cut
137
posted on
11/25/2004 7:38:07 PM PST
by
Wooly
To: forYourChildrenVote4Bush
F-22s are already in low rate production.
To: JRandomFreeper
139
posted on
11/25/2004 7:39:43 PM PST
by
Haro_546
(Christian Zionist)
To: Haro_546
Get a grip! And get a dictionary.
The F-22 can fly rings around everything else out there; Ergo, BUFFs will fly another 50 years.
140
posted on
11/25/2004 7:40:13 PM PST
by
BIGLOOK
(I once opposed keelhauling but have recently come to my senses.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 621-636 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson