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?
Understand.
It's a pet frustration hereon.
Thanks for a kind reply.
If my memory serves me right,
she either saw sillouettes in windows or saw in her mind the critters inside.
They were NOT bigfoot.
I think the poster needs to make a better case before initiating a thread.
But I'm sure that (conveniently) you can't share any facts, like names, places, dates, etc.
Too bad. BTW, have you spoken to Elvis lately?
Another thing:
"The aircraft will operate at around 45,000- 55,000ft at a speed of around M1.5 without the need for afterburners, according to the USAF"
With these abilities, this a/c does not need to have VTOL or carrier-launch characteristics.
Look at the F117. It is a sub-sonic only a/c and only launches from a ground base. Yet it has the long-range capability to snuff the SAMs and AAA before the heavies get there.
The F22 will make a great complement to the F117. It would fly BARCAP.
It was a slow day.
Perhaps he was curious about other's opinions. Perhaps he was slightly torn and wanted to think out-loud with others as a sounding board.
All such are fine with me.
The assumption and owner mandate is to be charitable with one another hereon.
Sure, we'd all prefer certainty and solid, irrefutable proof. Life's not like that.
As my boss noted at the Special Collections dept . . . about the TRUTH in pre Nazi Germany--it was the absolutely flakey, off the wall organizations, broadsides, pamphlets, posters etc. which FIRST AND MOST ACCURATELY--AND EARLY ON--PEGGED HITLER FOR WHO HE WAS, WHAT HIS VALUES WERE AND WHAT HE WOULD DO.
This sort of fact is blithely swished aside as folks cleave to their MSM and similarly born biases when assessing all kinds of things.
I don't find THAT very impressive, personally.
We ALL see through a glass darkly no matter how much "scientific" proof we have about a given subject. We never have 100% of the evidence. We never have 100% of all the facts on all sides.
The realities we all have to wrestle with and operate within are at best very rough approximations of whatever "objective" reality is. In fact, as has been demonstrated with quantum physics, as I understand it--there is no such thing as "objective" reality, to begin with.
At some point all the hue and cry about objectivity is mere whining because someone else's SUBJECTIVITY is so starkly different from one's own. And perhaps there's too much insecurity to allow the very real possibility that the other person's subjective reality may have more practical implications than one's own.
Alas, I race off to a rant. I'll stop here.
Perhaps you got your PhD in obtuseness.
If YOU had a relative who'd worked in such a project where parameters sometimes meant people being shot on sight . . .
ah, well, silly question.
OF COURSE, *YOU* WOULD
rush out and disclose whatever details might make you look good and your relative locked up.
Makes perfect sense.
Actually, in his case, I think Linda Howe once interviewed him.
But I still am disinclined to give you such information. I certainly don't think you've earned it!
BTW, isn't the Elvis insult a rather tiresome one?
Perhaps you could scrounge up some creativity and come up with a better rock to throw or slap in the face.
Should have added All to my addressee list:
It was a slow day.
Perhaps he was curious about other's opinions. Perhaps he was slightly torn and wanted to think out-loud with others as a sounding board.
All such are fine with me.
The assumption and owner mandate is to be charitable with one another hereon.
Sure, we'd all prefer certainty and solid, irrefutable proof. Life's not like that.
As my boss noted at the Special Collections dept . . . about the TRUTH in pre Nazi Germany--it was the absolutely flakey, off the wall organizations, broadsides, pamphlets, posters etc. which FIRST AND MOST ACCURATELY--AND EARLY ON--PEGGED HITLER FOR WHO HE WAS, WHAT HIS VALUES WERE AND WHAT HE WOULD DO.
This sort of fact is blithely swished aside as folks cleave to their MSM and similarly born biases when assessing all kinds of things.
I don't find THAT very impressive, personally.
We ALL see through a glass darkly no matter how much "scientific" proof we have about a given subject. We never have 100% of the evidence. We never have 100% of all the facts on all sides.
The realities we all have to wrestle with and operate within are at best very rough approximations of whatever "objective" reality is. In fact, as has been demonstrated with quantum physics, as I understand it--there is no such thing as "objective" reality, to begin with.
At some point all the hue and cry about objectivity is mere whining because someone else's SUBJECTIVITY is so starkly different from one's own. And perhaps there's too much insecurity to allow the very real possibility that the other person's subjective reality may have more practical implications than one's own.
Alas, I race off to a rant. I'll stop here.
Quix,
I agree with the other posters who are disagreeing with you. I am an avid aviation enthusiast, and I watch the industry, defense spending bills and such, and I do not think there are mysterious weapons systems out there, for the most part. I do believe they are working on things that most of us do not see or hear about, but I do not think they would hesitate to get them into functioning defense systems as soon as they are viable.
I appreciate your perspective.
I've seen toooooooooooo much stuff and talked to too many people who've seen far more directly to agree with you.
You might do well to get the DVD's that Dr Stephen Greer prepared from amongst the 400 professionals going on record . . . prepared for the Congresscritters.
I'd be very interested if your convictions were as strongly held after viewing the expert testimony on the DVD's.
Lots of things are not as they seem--regardless of the reams of bureaucratic 'evidence.'
Oh, but they're allowed to take their super-secret UFO for a spin around the block for their little girl to see just to impress them?
Sure.
True stealth.
2 Dimensional trust vectoring.
APG77, the most powerful radar in ANY fighter on this planet.
Advanced avionics
Helmet mounted cueing system
And much much more will make the F22 in the future like the F15 was for the next 30 years. Complete air dominance. A 300 pound gorilla who in a 4 ship formation goes up and is limited in kills by the number of missiles carried. An almost perverted overmatch to the newer threat aircraft which allows the USAF to dominate the sky with minimal loss of life or equipment.
The F22 will come! It is a neccessity. We today are confronted with a wide range of scenarios where high intensity/major theater war is STILL possible. We can't allow limited past experiences to completely drive our procurement of future weapon systems. Doing so and cancelling the F22 would create a void in our defense. We don't need many F22s, but we need them none the less. God knows what will happen in 2010. It's to late to worry about it then.
Again, the exact same arguments were brought against the F15. Yet today, no one would dare question the F15s performance or its neccessity within todays force structure.
Red6
Sometimes it seems like you give no thought to your posts, at all.
Let's see if there's any chance at all that I can increase your understanding. I'm not hopeful but willing to try.
1) There are craft which we have--depending on who you talk to--reverse engineered/been taught by ET's how to build.
2) GUESS WHAT! ET's have *NOT* turned ALLLLLL THEIR craft over to us. THEY still have however large a set of fleets of different sorts of craft that they have.
GUESS WHAT:
The craft hovering over the street and curb for my friend to view as a teenager had nothing to do, per se, with any of OUR government's control over OUR craft. The craft was totally in the hands and under the conrtol of the ET's driving it--who's craft it was.
GUESS WHAT:
ET'S DO PRETTY DURN WELL WHAT THEY PLEASE--especially with THEIR craft.
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Sigh.
By the way,
very cleaver avoidance of the main point about one's relatives.
Clever indeed. I don't blame you a lot. It's probably the best one can do regarding such matters and the related logic associated.
"1) There are craft which we have--depending on who you talk to--reverse engineered/been taught by ET's how to build."
"2) GUESS WHAT! ET's have *NOT* turned ALLLLLL THEIR craft over to us. THEY still have however large a set of fleets of different sorts of craft that they have."
"GUESS WHAT:"
"The craft hovering over the street and curb for my friend to view as a teenager had nothing to do, per se, with any of OUR government's control over OUR craft. The craft was totally in the hands and under the conrtol of the ET's driving it--who's craft it was."
GUESS WHAT:
ET'S DO PRETTY DURN WELL WHAT THEY PLEASE--especially with THEIR craft.
Elementary, my dear Watson. Sigh.
Oh, my mistake. I should have known better. When I talk to ETs they are always very accomodating with their technology.
Me: "Can you pop over in your spaceship so my little girl can take a look, and so I can get some pics for Entertainment Tonight?"
ET: "Hey, no prob. I can stop by on my way to Rodman's house. Big party tonight."
We have many little projects but they are kept under the lid because:
Even our allies spy on us; industrial espionage.
Our enemies spy on us.
Some capabilities once known loose much of their effect. The F117 flew long before people knew it existed.
Certain tactics, techniques or procedures can be developed if you know the exact capabilities of the hardware in order to minimize its effectiveness and maximize yours. Exact radar/ECM/ECCM capabilities become sensitive issues real quick.
We keep things under a lid so we don't loose billions through espionage and to keep our bubbas safe. It's not to mislead the public or anything else.
We spend OVER $30,000,000,000 on research, development, test and evaluation annually. Many others would like to gain from our research without paying. It’s really that simple.
Red6
For your relatives' sake, I hope whatever you have doesn't run in the family.
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.