Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/25/2004 6:44:38 PM PST by Haro_546
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last
To: Haro_546

dude you are a fa.... go back to DU


465 posted on 11/26/2004 8:38:50 AM PST by GoMonster (GO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

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.


485 posted on 11/26/2004 9:51:20 AM PST by balk (Martin's goin' down (just you wait!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

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


493 posted on 11/26/2004 10:25:32 AM PST by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

No...


504 posted on 11/26/2004 10:47:12 AM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Fury

Ping for later read...


510 posted on 11/26/2004 11:53:33 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

p


513 posted on 11/26/2004 12:06:26 PM PST by investigateworld (( "Bob, I bled from every wound", Sen. J. Kerry to Sen. R. Dole ...Target HQ is in a blue state! ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

"usefull sistems"
Useful systems you mean.

And the F-22 is needed to replace the F-15, which is beginning to show it's age.
The F-14 has needed to be replaced for awhile, but no workable design had been forwarded to do so yet.
The F-16 also needs to be replaced.

Basically, all that nice new neato tech can't be installed in the 'tried and true' workhorses.
Wanna know why?
The generators aren't gutsy enough.
And the wiring couldn't handle the load either.
In the end, stripping and refitting an F-15 to use the electronics suite from an F-22 would cost the same as building a brand new aircraft.

Understand?


519 posted on 11/26/2004 1:09:20 PM PST by Darksheare (Love, stay thy hand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

I don't think so. It will keep us #1 in air supremecy. I live directly in the flightline of Lockeed/Dobbins AFB in Marietta,Ga. , and as I write this, there is one being testflown. Great looking aircraft, regardless of what anyone thinks of it's effectiveness.


525 posted on 11/26/2004 1:32:40 PM PST by Jackknife (.......Land of the Free,because of the Brave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546
Yes. This type of aircraft has no place in the modern battlefield and Foreseeable conflicts.

We hear the same exact thing about the Abrams Tank, until it proved to be almost invincible.
Then we heard this crap about the A-10 Warthog, until it proceeded to kill tanks like shooting fish in a barrel.
Then we heard this stuff about the Stryker, until it went to Iraq....

Before that it was the Bradley...

529 posted on 11/26/2004 1:57:24 PM PST by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

It might sound dumb today to spend that kind of money when our military efforts are directed towards fighting low tech terrorists.

However when the Chinese dragon rears it's head between now and 2020, we will be extremely happy our leaders bought that F-22.


547 posted on 11/26/2004 2:27:58 PM PST by matchwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

the y-23 should be resurrected - it had superior performance, maneuverability & was faster as well.


550 posted on 11/26/2004 2:39:36 PM PST by NoClones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546
OK Haro546, I don't have time to read 550+ responses to see if this was answered already, but here goes: the $239 million per plane you quoted, assuming it is correct, is not just for parts and labor. A whole hell of a lot of R&D goes into it too, years before the first plane ever leaves the assembly line. And guess what, most of that R&D money has already been spent.

At least 50% of the price tag is R&D, probably more, so if the [ahem] 'sistem' were cancelled now, all that R&D money is lost, with zero return on the investment. You would have us scrap years and years of research, engineering, design, software coding, testing, and prototype trials, paid for with money that has already been spent, just to save a few million on the actual construction of the plane. And leave us without a next-generation fighter to boot. Sounds to me like the half-assed DUmmie way of doing business.

And it ain't gonna happen.

582 posted on 11/26/2004 3:47:27 PM PST by StoneFury (The only thing hippies understand is the fist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546
Lets tell the world we are going to build 800 of them and then only build 80. By the time our enemy is building a counter to them we will build a much better one. Maybe a little scramjet fighter with 7000 mph speed, yeah baby. Maybe remote controlled scramjets, yeah yeah baby.

In other words keep R&D going hot. Air superiority will be done by smaller and faster and much more lethal aircraft. We will have pilots controlling many other craft. Laser type weaponry will be coming on line also.

So yeah, we can cut the number of aircraft but don't tell anyone.

But keep the R and D going strong, whatever you decide.
591 posted on 11/26/2004 5:32:10 PM PST by TomasUSMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

My short answer, hell no. We have to keep the Russians and Chinese honest and advanced weaponry is the only way.


595 posted on 11/26/2004 9:17:18 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

$239,000,000 for a systern....that's outragious!


609 posted on 11/27/2004 8:02:18 AM PST by cbkaty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

stuning


613 posted on 11/27/2004 12:59:45 PM PST by melbell (groovy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

Instead of cutting the budget of weapons systems (in a time of war), why don't you look at and advocate cutting some of that bloated social spending the federal government hands out. Have you looked at the federal budget lately?

But to answer your question. Absolutely not. I've personally seen the F-22 fly and it can out turn a F-16 (which is much smaller). We (the U.S.) must keep the industrial capability to produce advanced systems for our defense. The engineers and manufacturing base would simply move on to other industries due to lack of jobs. In other words, you can not halt defense technology and assume you can get it back when you need it.

Besides, do you think Russia, China and others are just sitting around on their hands?


618 posted on 11/27/2004 2:04:06 PM PST by dmanLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Haro_546

Not just no, but Hell NO! :P


634 posted on 12/01/2004 6:34:15 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson