Posted on 11/25/2004 6:44:38 PM PST by Haro_546
IF the puppet masters continue to refuse to allow us to use our REALLY ADVANCED stuff in places like Iraq.
And if there is no other more reasonable alternative--fine--make some of the boondoggle craft and field them in places like Iraq.
I still wouldn't think we'd need sooooo many wasted time, energy and resources for so many such obselete craft.
I flew Hornets and now fly F-16s. We participated in some of the op/evals against the F-22. All I can say is that it was eye watering. What a great piece of gear
Yes, it WAS.
Yes, it was designed with a carrier variant. NO, it was not designed to take off vertically.
The Marine variant (not the Navy version)is a "Short Take Off/Vertical Landing" design. The Fan generates lift to greatly shorten the take off run, but it can't go up vertically like the Harrier. The British Royal Navy is slated to use the Marine version on their smaller carriers.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The F-22 Raptor not only can do supersonic speeds (mach 1.5) without afterburners, it can also outrun most SAMs. Plus with its stealth technology.... its nearly invisable to the enemy.
It can show up, kick ass, and leave before anyone even knew what happened.
Plus from what my buddy who actually flys fighter jets (F-18's) and is in Iraq right now says they're the next best thing since sliced bread. Everyone in the airforce wants to get behind the controls of one even though they all love the F-18 Hornet.
I'm going to take an actual combat pilots advice before some forum jockey or arm-chair general.
Hey airborne, you better find out what "technologies" Quix is writing about before you tell him that he's accurate. LOL.
You're only enabling him further in his delusions.
Besides, somehow I don't think "Space Invaders" is what you had in mind.
You seem to be one of the few here who have this guy correctly pegged (grin)! It's time to just ignore him, now. He'll eventually go away.
LOL! That takes me back to those days. And I knew a pilot that flew both. I got a lot of info on the pros and cons of each airframe that was suggested.... And then I was an Eagle Keeper for a few lucky years.
/john
EP-3 A/C
I still believe the people I've known who
35 years ago
insisted that we had stuff in the bank, closet, storage, reserve
that would boggle the minds of even the more knowledgable but uninformed experts.
That was 35 YEARS ago. None of those systems have surfaced YET.
The reccomendations of the men who fly them is, to me, what speaks loudest. Thank you for the input.
Ok brain surgeon, what is the foreseeable conflict this aircraft is not suited for?
How many years were you in on how many deployments?
HOw many things did you see . . .
wandering by . . .
that you had no explanation for?
Oh, don't be ridiculous! You know yourself that Will Smith is the only pilot that has been able to fly one of those things and even then it was at best touch-and-go.
I can only imagine how much fun you guys have had in those things... :)
And you're ruining a perfectly good ZOT! thread.
Haro_546 is the target and you're attracting more attention than the Troll!
It's ludicrous, I tell 'ya, ludicrous.
Who knows how much technology was lost or stolen in the Clinton era.
You have it exactly backwards.
The F22 should continue. The Osprey should be dumped.
Knowing what I know . . .
plus what I have reason to believe
[no will give no sources nor reasons to trust what I say beyond what I write]
. . .
The F22 is archaic. It must be a very expensive boondoggle smoke screen. I have no other explanation.
There must be--off the guessing top of my head 3-12 better platforms either already manufactured and waiting for immediate deployment from bases inside mountains or ready for rapid manufacturing and roll out. Some of those better systems would be at least 10 times better on a list of dimensions.
Remember the SR71 is archaic, too.
I have never been impressed with the F-22. Being a retired AF officer that is something approaching heresy. Having said that…
We need to field the technology that went into the F-22. If it is a limited, and hence very costly, production run okay. If it is rolling the technology into the current F-15/F-16 force along with a service life extension program that too is okay.
We also need to reduce the developmental time and concepts currently used. The F-22 has been on the drawing boards for a decade plus. Why? The AF insists on designing with one committee, spending money by a second and totally unrelated committee, and building with a third and totally different committee. The result are programs that are over cost, behind schedule, and fields less that required capabilities.
The current system produces paper by the long ton, awards and decorations by the hundreds, and reduces responsibility to ZERO. Any business that attempted to operate the way the AF buys projects would be bankrupt a week after it was incorporated.
Still, lets buy the F-22, about a double Wing’s worth (120 aircraft), so we can wring out the technology and figure out what to do next. This would keep us a generation plus ahead of our nearest future enemy which might be enough for them to think twice before going to war over a “renegade province”.
There's a logical explanation for that, but you don't seem to be a fan of Occam's razor.
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.