F14SRCOOL Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 ok my only problem with the f-22 is why the hell do you guys need 381!!! true its expensive but it is very advanced as mentioned i just dont see why you need so many advanced aircraft to bomb unsophisticated terrorists i mean jeez it aint the cold war anymore. Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 But they do come with the Afterburner Decals coffee cup holder and mouse pad mod. Are they still coming with XM? And what about iPod compatibility - was that in the latest Lot or was that going to happen in the next ? Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 ok my only problem with the f-22 is why the hell do you guys need 381!!! That number allows one wing of F-22's for each AEF, plus have jets for FTU, Weapons School, the 422, CTF, and attrition replacements. i just dont see why you need so many advanced aircraft to bomb unsophisticated terrorists i mean jeez it aint the cold war anymore. The F-22 is expected to be in service for thirty to fourty years; if you know the exact nature of every armed conflict that will take place in that time frame, please contact the U.N. they would like to hear from you. The F-22 allows the USAF to face any conceivable threat now and in that time frame, and the U.S. is not willing to risk national security on the assumption that the type of conflict happening today will be the same threat in ten, twenty, or thirty years. By the way, most of the bombing of terrorists is in fact being done by advanced aircraft (B-1, B-2, F-18E/F, F-15E, F-16C). A more advanced aircraft can always take part in an operation against an unsophisticated opponent; a simple aircraft can't reverse the roles though and fight against a sophisticated one. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
Horrido Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 ok my only problem with the f-22 is why the hell do you guys need 381!!! true its expensive but it is very advanced as mentioned i just dont see why you need so many advanced aircraft to bomb unsophisticated terrorists i mean jeez it aint the cold war anymore. Because the planet's a big place, and conflicts can erupt simultaneously across the globe. The goal isn't just to bomb unsophisticated terrorists, but also to deter/counter other nations armed with highly sophisticated equipment such as Su-30s and S-300-series SAMs. The end of the Cold War does NOT mean an end to dictators and hostile regimes armed with technologically advanced equipment. Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Murph - this is no place for logic That number allows one wing of F-22's for each AEF, plus have jets for FTU, Weapons School, the 422, CTF, and attrition replacements.The F-22 is expected to be in service for thirty to fourty years; if you know the exact nature of every armed conflict that will take place in that time frame, please contact the U.N. they would like to hear from you. The F-22 allows the USAF to face any conceivable threat now and in that time frame, and the U.S. is not willing to risk national security on the assumption that the type of conflict happening today will be the same threat in ten, twenty, or thirty years. By the way, most of the bombing of terrorists is in fact being done by advanced aircraft (B-1, B-2, F-18E/F, F-15E, F-16C). A more advanced aircraft can always take part in an operation against an unsophisticated opponent; a simple aircraft can't reverse the roles though and fight against a sophisticated one. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
Almansur Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I'm betting my (low) reputation on Japan getting the F-22A as soon as the proper paperwork is done... A "purely defensive" fighter (for domestic publicity), that can be turned into a mean stealth deep striker with a timely delivery of a C-17 load of JDAMs... Australia is a distant possibility, and sure hope Israel does not get'em... Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Barr Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 That number allows one wing of F-22's for each AEF, plus have jets for FTU, Weapons School, the 422, CTF, and attrition replacements.The F-22 is expected to be in service for thirty to fourty years; if you know the exact nature of every armed conflict that will take place in that time frame, please contact the U.N. they would like to hear from you. The F-22 allows the USAF to face any conceivable threat now and in that time frame, and the U.S. is not willing to risk national security on the assumption that the type of conflict happening today will be the same threat in ten, twenty, or thirty years. By the way, most of the bombing of terrorists is in fact being done by advanced aircraft (B-1, B-2, F-18E/F, F-15E, F-16C). A more advanced aircraft can always take part in an operation against an unsophisticated opponent; a simple aircraft can't reverse the roles though and fight against a sophisticated one. Regards, Murph That's not logic, that's just a PR statement that the "evil" Lockheed gave you guys to hand out Regards Jim Barr Link to post Share on other sites
kstater94 Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I don't mean to break the tension here But a key phrase in Waco's statement made me think of an old Shoe cartoon. Skyler was in history class taking a test. He came to this question: "Why did the South lose the Civil War?" He sat and thought about it for a bit and answered: "The South lost the Civil War because they did not gain air superiority" I still have that cartoon somewhere... Sorry for the interruption Ring the bell please and remember, NO hitting BELOW the belt! Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted September 13, 2006 Author Share Posted September 13, 2006 (edited) true its expensive but it is very advanced as mentioned i just dont see why you need so many advanced aircraft to bomb unsophisticated terrorists i mean jeez it aint the cold war anymore. Dude are you freakin serious? In addtion to what Murph and Waco just said, are you really that short sighted? This war in Iraq and this fight against the terrorists will only last so long. The US has global responsibilites and is evident already- countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria not to mention China and an increasingly hostile Russia who are increasingly willing to challenge the United States. The North Koreas probably have nuke, the Irans are trying like hell- to top it all off they're not exactly mentally balanced. The Chinese are trying to dominate the Pacific and the Russians are resorting back their old ways. They all have large conventional forces; they are all also modernizing their forces with new jets and SAM systems. It's not IF we get into a conflict with these people; it's WHEN. Our guys need to be able to go in there, take down their air defenses and get the job done. Like it or not- we're not all going to join hands and sing Kumbyah- the world doesn't work that way and never will. Also, think about this... the Vietnam war was only ~25 years or so after WW2. Flying F-15s, F-16s, F-18s in the 2030 timeframe is like flying a P-51 over Hanoi in 1965- it's just asking for our guys to be killed. Quite frankly it comes down to if the United States wants to remain a superpower or not. To boil it down to the local level, do we as a society want to be able to go to Star bucks driving in a giant SUV with cheap gas in the tank? The answer is hell yeah (well in my case sports car and I hate coffee but you get my drift), but we have to pay for it. One of the bills that comes due is paying for national security ie. proper equipment for the troops. For the record, I would prefer that we buy as many freakin Raptors as we can- one to replace every F-15, F-15E, and F-117, at least 750. For 106 million per jet it's probably more than worth it, it's not like the sunk R&D cost can recouped any other way. Edited September 13, 2006 by Rapier01 Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Barr Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 "The South lost the Civil War because they did not gain air superiority" Yeah and the same thing happened with Custer; there he was complaining about the lack of air support and the FAC had to remind him... “Sir, I told you we did not have enough airframes to support you dividing up into three columns" Regards Jim Barr Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 (edited) When I saw "New York Times" I pretty much threw accuracy out the window It's kind a funny, but NY Times is considered here in Europe, including the Finnish media, as a quality newspaper. It's usually mentioned as one of the most trusted and unbiased newspapers in the US! Even the journalists aren't experts in every field of human activity. Hey, I'm living with one! :) This war in Iraq and this fight against the terrorists will only last so long. The US has global responsibilites and is evident already- countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria not to mention China and an increasingly hostile Russia who are increasingly willing to challenge the United States. The North Koreas probably have nuke, the Irans are trying like hell- to top it all off they're not exactly mentally balanced. The Chinese are trying to dominate the Pacific and the Russians are resorting back their old ways. They all have large conventional forces; they are all also modernizing their forces with new jets and SAM systems. It's not IF we get into a conflict with these people; it's WHEN. Our guys need to be able to go in there, take down their air defenses and get the job done. Like it or not- we're not all going to join hands and sing Kumbyah- the world doesn't work that way and never will. Let's not get into politics. That was a statement. I could comment on many of the things you said of these countries and their possible actions or who should take responsibility of what and so on. I won't 'cause I've learned my lesson. Edited September 13, 2006 by janman Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 It's kind a funny, but NY Times is considered here in Europe, <snip> as a quality newspaper. It's usually mentioned as one of the most trusted and unbiased newspapers in the US! :) Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 :) Well, I trust NYT! Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 To boil it down to the local level, do we as a society want to be able to go to Star bucks driving in a giant SUV with cheap gas in the tank? Guys, you HAVE cheap gas! I'm paying 1,30 euros/litre and I ain't complaining! I am, actually... Link to post Share on other sites
Keith Diamond Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Congratulations, you win a big fat taco for preparing for the last war rather than anticipating changing global politics, alliances, emergent technologies, and regional instabilities. You have a promising future in a career as a politician, liberal activist, anti-military lobbyist, POGO columnist, or Ralph Peters personal assistant. Alternatively, you may also wish to seek employment in other services who have come to accept air supremacy as the standard, but are unwilling to pay the dollar cost to ensure it remains in the future. While in that employ, you can work tremendously effectively to hamstring advanced air dominance projects such as the Raptor, F-35, advanced air-air missiles, and jamming platforms in the interest of pushing your own "transformational" technology. Just remember that the PROVEN doctrine of the last 60 years is that you cannot effectively accomplish ANY military operation without first having gained air superiority. Damn. Ouch :) Link to post Share on other sites
Steven Leeds Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I would rather have cheap Coffee at Starbucks and if it takes 381 Raptors to bring that about I say have at it... Disclaimer: I write this with all due respect for you guys flying these things. Thank you... Link to post Share on other sites
raptor22 Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 what he said about what Keith said I concur... Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Dude are you freakin serious? In addtion to what Murph and Waco just said, are you really that short sighted? This war in Iraq and this fight against the terrorists will only last so long. The US has global responsibilites and is evident already- countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria not to mention China and an increasingly hostile Russia who are increasingly willing to challenge the United States. The North Koreas probably have nuke, the Irans are trying like hell- to top it all off they're not exactly mentally balanced. The Chinese are trying to dominate the Pacific and the Russians are resorting back their old ways. They all have large conventional forces; they are all also modernizing their forces with new jets and SAM systems. It's not IF we get into a conflict with these people; it's WHEN. Our guys need to be able to go in there, take down their air defenses and get the job done. Like it or not- we're not all going to join hands and sing Kumbyah- the world doesn't work that way and never will. The real threat is Canada.....run for your lives!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted September 13, 2006 Author Share Posted September 13, 2006 Well the Canadians are massing most of their population against our border... also a number of them speak French... a sound theory to be sure... Link to post Share on other sites
Keith Diamond Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 and their show Terrance and Philip is corrupting American children Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Ponder the Canadian threat.... Canada is cold.....global warming is good for Caanda. Canada has lots of oil to sell to the US to keep global warming going. Canada has the world largest supply of fresh water......Canada plans to sell that to the US after the oil runs out and the US is one big dried up desert. Plus the US-Canadian border is the longest unprotected border. If the US tried to invade Canada....they'd be like the Germans invading Russia......Canada just goes on forever!!! Steve B Link to post Share on other sites
g0_command0 Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Canada vs the U.S.....the great lakes will be filled with blood! We should settle this old school style, no guns all out swords!! BRAVE HEART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Arericans will use land mines along the border......Canadians will mobilize the Trapper Brigade and lay millions of leg hold traps along the border. Oh the horror!!! Steve B Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Canada vs the U.S.....We should settle this old school style, no guns... Nope...just skates, pucks, and hockey sticks...and Canada wins with ease :( ! Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 (edited) and their show Terrance and Philip is corrupting American children "My son could've been a doctor or a lawyer rich and true, Instead he burned up like a piggy on the barbecue Should we blame the matches? Should we blame the fire? Or the doctors who allowed him to expire? Heck no! Blame Canada Blame Canada With all their hockey hullabaloo And that b!†c# Anne Murray too!" :( Edited September 14, 2006 by Trigger74 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts