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, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 621-636 next last
To: tuckunderbreak
read "Systems", Im sorry.
21
posted on
11/25/2004 6:52:24 PM PST
by
Haro_546
(Christian Zionist)
To: Haro_546
First I disagree with your fundamental premise. How can you say they have no place?
1. F15's are getting tired and more expensive to maintain.
1.5. F14's are retired and F18's are NOT air superiority fighters
2. The Russians are developing a very similar aircraft and will sell it to anybody with the cash.
2.5. The Frogs are also working to develop similar technology.
3. It will increase our kill ratio, probably dramatically.
I might agree with you on the total number but the fundamental technology is vital.
22
posted on
11/25/2004 6:52:42 PM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
(Off to the store for Marlboro reds and Miller High Life. NSDQ)
To: Oblongata
It can not be deployed by Carrier. Plus the Chinese probably have a barrage of missiles for it.
23
posted on
11/25/2004 6:53:26 PM PST
by
Haro_546
(Christian Zionist)
To: Haro_546
How about- Read: "foreseeable", "useful", "systems", "costs", and "What's".
As for the gist of your question, I don't know enough to respond...
To: Haro_546
I like the F-22. I think they should develop zeppelins.
25
posted on
11/25/2004 6:53:47 PM PST
by
Ptarmigan
(Proud rabbit hater and killer)
To: Haro_546
I'm not sure yet.
I have read some articles (can't remember where) that said in some war-games, the Indian AF held their own against the U.S. and one with China where the results showed that the only aircraft that could both range and evade the Air Defenses was the B-2.
I agree with you in that with the type of combat we are seeing today, and in the foreseeable future (10 years or so), the current aircraft are preforming well, even to the point of no one being able to match us.
Acquisition programs run well beyond 10 years, however, especially for high-tech aircraft.
Just my 2-cents.
26
posted on
11/25/2004 6:53:56 PM PST
by
MHak
To: Haro_546
If you (a country) are not moving forward in military technology you are not even standing still. You are falling behind.
When a major war starts it's too late to try to catch-up with somebody else on the technology side of things.
27
posted on
11/25/2004 6:54:17 PM PST
by
PeteB570
To: Pukin Dog; hchutch; Poohbah
28
posted on
11/25/2004 6:54:34 PM PST
by
Long Cut
(The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
To: demlosers
Air dominance is better insured by better missile/bomb/satellites than by Ultra advance and expensive planes.
29
posted on
11/25/2004 6:54:52 PM PST
by
Haro_546
(Christian Zionist)
To: Mr Rogers
30
posted on
11/25/2004 6:55:11 PM PST
by
Haro_546
(Christian Zionist)
To: Haro_546
Stop the F22? NO. Air superiority isn't the only reason. American jobs. Advanced aerospace technology development and knowledge. Scientific advancement. Spin offs that enhance the rest of the economy and manufacturing (until it is off shored).
To: Haro_546
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?
My opinion is that you haven't specified your bonafides to which you make a declarative statement that the aircraft has on place in the modern battlefield and Foreseeable conflicts.
What are the 'more useful sistems' that you think it should be replaced with and why?
32
posted on
11/25/2004 6:56:51 PM PST
by
deport
(I've done a lot things.... seen a lot of things..... Most of which I don't remember.)
To: mad_as_he$$
replace them with the F-35s, the F-22 is way too expensive and other cheaper technology can replace its role.
33
posted on
11/25/2004 6:56:51 PM PST
by
Haro_546
(Christian Zionist)
To: Haro_546
Last time I heard, the Commandant of the Corps wants it, for rapid insertion/extraction.
34
posted on
11/25/2004 6:57:00 PM PST
by
Petronski
(New York London Paris Munich Ev'rybody Talk About Mmm Pop Music)
To: Oblongata
It's a bad plane for a situation like Iraq. We own the skies over Iraq. Winning ground wars depend on us owning the air space now and in the future.
To: John Valentine
36
posted on
11/25/2004 6:57:46 PM PST
by
Haro_546
(Christian Zionist)
To: PeteB570
I agree with PeteB570. As a former USN Jet Mechanic and aviation buff, this is true. We MUST move forward with the V22 and F22, overcome the teething and design difficultes. They are not the first systems with serious problems.
37
posted on
11/25/2004 6:58:01 PM PST
by
rlmorel
To: Haro_546
The system costs a lot of money.
Not having air superiority in the next major war (China?) a decade or two down the line will cost us a lot more.
38
posted on
11/25/2004 6:58:20 PM PST
by
Gritty
("I WANT MY MONEY BACK!" - Mrs. Mark Miller, former Kerry supporter, upon learning he is keeping it)
Comment #39 Removed by Moderator
To: Haro_546
Let's dump the military and spend all the money cloning an Army of Jimmy Carters....(It's easy to think like a liberal.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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