I know what you're thinking... Did he shoot 4 air to air missiles, or 5? I know you can't see what I'm carrying inside my airframe, so you have to ask yourself... "Do I feel lucky?"
Well do ya'... Punk?
Posted on 06/11/2006 9:13:18 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
Don't forget the external speakers !
The F-22 is a much needed step forward into the twenty first century. I agree - cut some social spending and have around one thousand of those babies around. The F-22 doesnt need to be one of those items where you only have a handfull of them - that would be exceptionally bad for us.
Interesting you would ask that question. Here is the answer. The F-22 would destroy 4 of the 5 F-16s before they knew it was in the vicinity. The 5th would then have the choice of running, or engaging the most maneuverable fighter ever built. The Raptor has a gun, or did you know that? The odds are, the F-16 beats feet.
Umm Not this exercise but in a previous one 4 F-22's were sent to engage 33(yes 33) F-15's. The F-22's had zero losses. This also takes into account that they fired their BVR missiles and returned to base to re-up and go back and engage in the hot zone. The F-22 alone can engage multiple targets at once and fire its missiles,leaving the area of engagement before most fighters detect that they are being attacked. It is a great investment for this country.
Sorry a correction it was 8 F-22's not 4.
Pretty plane. Sadly, there will be a lot fewer of them if they ever engage an F-22.
Wonder why "they" don't design stealth missles.. and cruise missles?.. The radars wouldn't see them coming.. You know to go with the stealth design of the airframes of the planes..
Puking Dog, everytime I see a post from you, I am reminded of your classic "Delivering Flowers on Valentine's Day" thread. Are you looking foward to doing it again next year?
"Let's see ... the appropriately numbered F-16 costs about $16 million."
Nope, they come in right at what you list for the F-18, nowadays more than $50 million a pop. The F-22s are more than five times as expensive, but provide a capability that F-16s simply don't.
The F-35 should be a worthy F-16 replacement, I hope they get the per-unit cost down on that one.
LOL is right!
I used to love that movie (Firefox) and "Red October" - until I realized something unusual about those movies.
Both movies showed the left's perceived SUPERIORITY of Russia and that Americans had to STEAL (which the dems know a lot about) technology in order to be a "super power".
REALITY is the exact opposite; it was Russia who had to steal from us to maintain a super power status - but still unequal to America's.
They do look up JASSM its a stealthy cruise missile.
Raptor heritage flight vid.........
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8dkBo9HR0XsJ:homepage.mac.com/lightningrodpictures/iMovieTheater33.html+/lightningrodpictures+raptor&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
I don't think it'll be that sad, I'm figuring about a 1 for 1 exchange rate. (1 Sukhoi = 1 DFC).
Thanks.. why not air to air stealth missles?..
You mean for use in 'applying' the "Apocalypse Now" effect?
I have never thought of Tom Clancy, author of "Hunt for the Red October", as a Liberal.
I know what you're thinking... Did he shoot 4 air to air missiles, or 5? I know you can't see what I'm carrying inside my airframe, so you have to ask yourself... "Do I feel lucky?"
Well do ya'... Punk?
There have been many test combat missions in which one F-22 wastes 5 or 6 F16/15s without them even knowing where it was.
Even the best F15/16 pilots that argue over who's best will agree that they're toast in about 30 seconds with a 22.
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.