Should The F-22 be cancelled?

26-nov,2004 | Me

[CHAZZ5122]

no,the article in popular mechanics about the indian air force kicking our butts in recent war games was a real eye opener.they flew su-30mk fighters and we flew f-15c.the article goes on to state that the outcome may have been different if we had used awacs equipped planes to help spot them first but then we would have to place a higher value on protecting these aircraft using more resources.

[Quix]

In addition to having a lack of awareness and a lack of respect for the quality historical record regarding many spiritual, Scriptural facts,

your affinity for unfitting mocking attacks is disappointing

and

shows a similar disregard--yet again--for Scripture.

Given a professed lack of EXPERIENCE with Holy Spirit, I can understand a certain lack of familiarity with nuances, specifics and particulars. But you seem to flaunt a kind of wholesale lack of awareness as though it were righteousness. That's rather mystifying.

[Haro_546]

Hello.

[quadrant]

Cancel the F22 and divert the money the JSF project.

[Haro_546]

I agree.

[Quix]

It seems clear that you didn't get the drift of my statements about avoiding particulars early in the thread.

I think you specifically offer a disincentive to provide specific evidence given your seemingly persistent aversion to avoiding showing the least bit of respect for sound factual evidence. I suppose in some context and from some perspective it makes some sense. But it's not particularly motivating.

In this thread, I've had and am having fun sharing thoughts and convictions from decades of study and association. You are welcome to mock that, reject that, throw chicken poop on it, give it rasberries, do back flips about it, offer diatribes and rants in response . . . you're welcome to do about anything in response that your heart desires and that you can get away with. You're even welcome to walk away feeling smug. Or, probably more in character, to continue throwing rocks.

[topcat54]

That's rather mystifying.

What's mystifying are your bogus claims ("UFO platforms") with no supporting evidence.

[Quix]

WOW.

Thanks.

If there were any incidents of the sort you'd think I'd have a particularly keen interest in, that you'd be willing to share via FREEPMAIL or regular email, please let me know. Quite a number of FREEPERS have had experiences working around or observing very unique craft. Some of the naysayers would be quite shocked at which well known FREEPERS fell in that category.

[Pukin Dog]

Okay, dude. It doesn't mean that folks will listen though.

First a few facts:

1. There is no fighter aircraft anywhere on the planet in production or on the drawing board that is as capable and dangerous as the F-22, excepting the F-23.

2. The US never goes into war games or exercises with other nations with a mind towards testing our own capabilities. Instead, we tank, play dead, fake it, play dumb and other things to see just how capable the other guy is. We don't need to know if we can whip India. I think we have that question covered?

3. Any aircraft produced by any opposing nation as an answer to the F-22 would not be able to be developed in sufficient numbers as to have any impact on our Air Superiority status over ANY nation. Russia does not have anything that approaches super-fighter status after you hang a few tanks and weapons on them. We see all those pretty Cobras, loops and other things they do in demos and air-shows, but anyone inclined can check the wing-loading and calculate just how agile these aircraft would be with a full load of fuel and a combat package.

4. Combat capability does not matter, if the F-22 blows your ass out of the sky while you are still picking your nose and waiting for your gear to come up. Even if you manage to get off the deck, and fire up your fancy ruskie radar, the only thing that your sensors are going to pick up are the two -120s going hound-dog on your ass. "Uh, this might be a good time to drop those tanks and break, Ivan?"

5. Currently, our front-line fighters are more than a match for anything out there. Where the fighter might have disadvantages, they are completely made up by the training of our pilots. When you can go out in an A-4 Skyhawk and fly circles around an F-18, (until that kid is trained) then you understand the advantages we have.

6. Lastly, the facts are clear. One F-22 is superior to at least 7 F-15s at this time. If the F-22 could carry more weapons, that gap would grow even stronger. There is not a single person on this long thread who has anything negative to say about the Raptor that has the slightest idea of what they are talking about. The F-22 ends the contest. If there are F-22s in the sky over some enemy country, the leaders of that enemy country know that they might as well save their aircraft and pilots, because they aint comin back from that fight. When you combine the capabilities of JStars, AWACS, AEGIS and the F-22, you know that these fights are over before they begin. The outcome is not in doubt. The US owns the sky. Deal with it.

[G Larry]

What the heck is the V-22 doing on your list?

GPS already maintains 24 active sats, plus 3 on-orbit spares. What does "more" get you?

[Pukin Dog]

Your penchant for bullshit is breathtaking. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

[Quix]

You evidently have such little awareness in the field, that all the evidence in the world would be mystifying gibberish because you'd have no track record of a background, context or reference point from which to evaluate anything--short of a craft landing in your back yard and being left there.

A friend of mine's dad had the connections and facility to arrange for a craft to hover outside their house over the street one morning when she was in her teens. He'd asked if she wanted to see one a few days earlier. She'd said yes. That early morning he summoned her outside and there it was hovering a few feet above the curb and pavement. I think it was one of the 30-50' diameter craft, if I remember right.

She asserted that she could get in contact with the related ET's any time she wanted. But, she, being a Spirit-filled Christian was not the least bit interested in such . . . spiritually disturbing contacts and had avoided it for decades.

This particular friend's dad happened to have been--as she described it--Einstein's best friend and colleague. I don't have those kinds of connections and especially not currently. Nor would I want them. I firmly believe that such technologies are in the steel hard, icy grip of the puppet masters.

That's OK.

I'm quite content imagining the look on your face when your construction on this reality crashes terminally to the ground. No, I will NOT be waiting on the edge of my seat for a very unlikely apology.

[Quix]

You evidently have such little awareness in the field, that all the evidence in the world would be mystifying gibberish because you'd have no track record of a background, context or reference point from which to evaluate anything--short of a craft landing in your back yard and being left there.

A friend of mine's dad had the connections and facility to arrange for a craft to hover outside their house over the street one morning when she was in her teens. He'd asked if she wanted to see one a few days earlier. She'd said yes. That early morning he summoned her outside and there it was hovering a few feet above the curb and pavement. I think it was one of the 30-50' diameter craft, if I remember right.

She asserted that she could get in contact with the related ET's any time she wanted. But, she, being a Spirit-filled Christian was not the least bit interested in such . . . spiritually disturbing contacts and had avoided it for decades.

This particular friend's dad happened to have been--as she described it--Einstein's best friend and colleague. I don't have those kinds of connections and especially not currently. Nor would I want them. I firmly believe that such technologies are in the steel hard, icy grip of the puppet masters.

That's OK.

I'm quite content imagining the look on your face when your construction on this reality crashes terminally to the ground. No, I will NOT be waiting on the edge of my seat for a very unlikely apology.

[Trueblackman]

Yes and you made sure I laughed so well, oh noble teacher.

[Haro_546]

GPS will be upgraded to 52 in theory. I like the v-22.

[topcat54]

A friend of mine's dad had the connections and facility to arrange for a craft to hover outside their house over the street one morning when she was in her teens. He'd asked if she wanted to see one a few days earlier. She'd said yes. That early morning he summoned her outside and there it was hovering a few feet above the curb and pavement. I think it was one of the 30-50' diameter craft, if I remember right.

Was Bigfoot at the controls?

[G Larry]

What's to "like" about it. (V-22)

I hired 2 people who LEFT that program in 1985!!

If you can't go operational in 20 plus years, its time to bag the concept.

You must be a Boeing fan.

[balk]

In order to fire the missile, you'd have to acquire the target. The F22, used in conjunction with proper tactics, has the ability and maneuverability to avoid a lock.

[BIGLOOK]

Yep! The proper place for enemy fighters is on the ground. Burial at sea is a nice touch for brave souls.

AF gets F-22s and that's fine but carrier based wings of similar A/C is checkmate. The effectiveness of F/A 18s & 14s has yet to be estimated; IMO it would be quadrupled.

Then send in the Marines....and McDonalds.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Even "Sixty Minutes" would be embarrassed by your post. You haven't adduced a scintilla of evidence, or even tried to establish a criterion by which a decision can be made. Could you please refrain from posting completely vacuous and inane opinions in the future?