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?
Happy anniversary. Good to have you with us.
air dominance means owning the sky, our current defense systems do this very effectively.
Hmmmmm.
But it seems rather ungainly to me. Or am I mixing it up. Oh, yeah. that one.
Yeah, I've heard that, too.
I don't put much stock in one or 2 or even 3-4 odd sources. But when it gets to be 8-12diverse, quality sorts of sources, it gets interesting.
I strongly believe that France will be in on the side of the Russians when they, the Chinese, Cubans, Venezuelans, Mexicans et al attack us.
The F-22 should be kept at squadron. Its a waste of money.
What systems do you propose? Will they be as effective as the F-22?
How long will these 'systems' take to put in place?
What will you do about the money already spent in the last decade for fighter that is ready to go into service?
Sensible to me.
Cancel it and build the UAVs which can do the job in the war on terrorism. DARPA, it was reported in Aviation Week a while back, had developed an ornithopter which could be covered with feathers and made to loook like a pigeon. Want a spy who could follow Al Quadea? Pigeons are ubiquitious and could listen for intelligence. His companion could carry a munitions charge and BOOM! How many millions could be built at the cost of one X-22???
(my blood type changed from O+ to O-)
Ahhhh. thanks.
Thought I'd seen it but wasn't sure where from.
We can't do anything about the money already spend. The f-22 is a hunter; we should upgrade the electronics on our current planes, better anti-radiation missiles,and SAM/AAM missiles, more cruisers and destroyers and build the F-35.
Interesting analysis.
Not very impressive to me, though.
Majorities in lots of groups have been wrong.
Majorities in groups against 'wierdos with no credibility' have also been wrong.
In my professional judgement, the USAF should stick to its plans for a F-22/F-35 mixed fleet.
I agree.
PRAISE GOD FOR THAT
AND ALL HIS BEST TO YOU AND YOUR SONS AND FAMILY.
May you have many long hours of deeply intimate conversations with your sons as you wind up preparing them for the future!
God's peace, guidance, provision, health, wholeness, joy, protection . . . be yours.
I always thought those were a bit hokey.
Passe, actually.
What are these more urgently needed defense systems? Our biggest weakness today is lack of actionable intelligence about terrorist threats. Unless you know of some magical new technology to improve our intelligence-gathering capability, I can't think of many systems that are more valuable than the F-22. Based on my non-expert knowledge of UAVs, I think you're overestimating the capability of un-manned aircraft. For example, UAVs cannot engage in a dogfight with an enemy fighter plane or land safely on an aircraft carrier. There are some missions that require the human eye and intelligence to make the right decisions. UAVs do a fine job of surveying the battlefield for ground commanders, but they can't land safely on a tight runway or engage an enemy plane effectively at this time.
As for fighter planes being helpless against surface to air missiles (SAMs), that's not true at this time. Standoff weapons are allowing us to stay farther away from air defense systems and we have well developed counter-measures against SAMs. Please recall that the Iraqis fired the latest Chinese missiles at our planes for ten years and never shot one down.
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.