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?
LOL! You mean you are not a member of the Pukin Dog Fan Club? Look, it is not opinion. The reason that many of the results of some of the engagement tests are not being published is that they are so good, Congress might decide that fewer Raptors are needed. The SA that the Raptor gives the pilot is so good, so far beyond anything else in the air, that it is not a fair fight, no matter how many aircraft you throw at it. When you combine that with an airframe that can go anywhere you point it, no matter how much available energy, and toss in that little bonus of being INVISIBLE until it is much too late to do anything about it, and you have fighter perfection. The only thing wrong with the Raptor is that under AF pilots, it will never achieve it's true potential.
Wanna join the Pukin Dog Fan Club once you've read your answer from PD? No buttons, banners or newsletters...just a sincere respect and appreciation for a man who knows his stuff. :o)
Ok, well, you uncovered the trap I was laying for you......if it's truly 7:1 then why not limit production to 1/7th? Answer: It's not really better than 7 F-15's.
But, let's uncover some of the BS, (ok, we'll call it "bluster") of your statement - clearly an F/A-22 is not able to deliver 7 times the payload of a Strike Eagle - so maybe that's not the comparison you were making (I know, I'm being deliberately argumentative on this one)- so we'll see what, if anything, comes out to support your assertion - or as you call it fact, or as I call it, "informed opinion - at best".
I agree, the Raptor is damn good. The avionics DO give the pilot unprecedented SA and that IS a significant multiplier, so we're not really in disagreement, but 7x? nah, I'll wait for the data before I'll buy into that one.
The argument is pretty moot though. the Raptor is here, and it is needed. Your point on the Navy is not lost though - the Navy's got squat right now, and they really need the capability inherent in the AF's F22 - you would probably not disagree with that, I'd guess.
A-12-like capabilities would make me a lot more comfortable given looming scenarios in Iran - if the Navy actually knew how to get aircraft without sending Admirals to jail, we'd all be better off. (/gratuitous navy slap)
"just a sincere respect and appreciation for a man who knows his stuff. :o)"
Didn't say he didn't command that from me......just keeping him honest....no disrespect in asking someone to defend something represented as unquestionable fact.....
"First, (and I really don't know why I bother) the things that I share on this web site do not require your belief in order to be valid."
LOL! If you can't reference it, just admit it, instead of getting all indignant that someone isn't following proper fan-club etiquitte.
Maybe you do have this sort of inside info, maybe you don't. Since you can't reference it, we'll never know if it's true, and if so, to what degree, will we?
Your 7:1 analogy depends very heavily on specific scenarios that would be contained in any reference that you may or may not have. I'm sincerely interested in that data - and don't require your consent to be curious about it - besides you DID bring it up.
Right now, you are providing as much hard data on this as Quix.....(hey, lighten up a little!)
"I was honest before you, and will remain so after you as well."
You know I wasn't questioning your honesty - merely asking you to explain a point. That is what is meant by the term "keeping you honest" - a term that is light-hearted and not implying that you are prevaricating on any point.
If you are truly offended by such a statement, then I apologize, and would like to continue discussing aircraft, like the F-22 and the military and other implications of them.
I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be a tease. My opinion on the matter is basically irrelevent. Weapons systems like the F-22 transcend the practicality of tactical requirements and leap into confused bureaucratic politics before the first rivet is pushed through the first panel on the first mock up. Our most effective systems are those that are developed outside the front pages of the Washington Post. As always.
Actually, that honor goes to either Italy or Serbia, depending on what your definition of combat usage is.
I don't doubt you, but we used them against Poncho Villa in 1916 before we entered WW1.
http://www.fac-assoc.org/Ancestry/ancestryofforwardaircontrollersthroughtwwii.htm
http://www.hsgng.org/pages/pancho.htm
I'm wrong in what I said. Others did use the fixed wing before us. Thanks, I was under the wrong impression there.
Red6
You dare argue with the all powerful Oz ???!!!
Just shut up and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
your comment about JSF being cancelled due to weight is mis-informed. The weight issue was solved months ago and if you cxl JSF what replaces F-16, F-18 and the Harrier?
Not just no, but Hell NO! :P
F-22 would eat China's lunch.
Is it true that the F-22 is designed to be able to control armed drones? I seem to remember reading that someplace.
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.