Poll: So the F-22 has been cancelled
- Thread starter Varun Garuda Maharaj
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bullshit.
The United States needs an air superiority fighter to replace the F-15. This women knows nothing about combat, the importance of air superiority and how disarmament DOES NOT WORK. It cost money to be the best, and I for one expect my government to protect me from ALL enemies foreign and domestic.
This women enrages me. I really think that she does not understand what an air superiority fighter is supposed to do. Which is one thing, kill enemy fighters. It doesn't need armour against small arms because it will be flying at 30,000 feet or better at mach 2. Her dissenting voice drives me to kill babies, god damn she is annoying.
Granted, the structuring of how it was manufactured is flawed (cash expenditures.) But the need for an air superiority fighter is still here. The USSR isn't around any more, but China and India are going to be the new threats to western ways of life.
I'm going to stop writing now, before I tick off everyone on the forum...
The United States needs an air superiority fighter to replace the F-15. This women knows nothing about combat, the importance of air superiority and how disarmament DOES NOT WORK. It cost money to be the best, and I for one expect my government to protect me from ALL enemies foreign and domestic.
This women enrages me. I really think that she does not understand what an air superiority fighter is supposed to do. Which is one thing, kill enemy fighters. It doesn't need armour against small arms because it will be flying at 30,000 feet or better at mach 2. Her dissenting voice drives me to kill babies, god damn she is annoying.
Granted, the structuring of how it was manufactured is flawed (cash expenditures.) But the need for an air superiority fighter is still here. The USSR isn't around any more, but China and India are going to be the new threats to western ways of life.
I'm going to stop writing now, before I tick off everyone on the forum...
Wow.
Just...*facepalm*.
Political bullshit aside, her 'analysis' of the plane's specs was just laughable. Cannot withstand small arms fire? Look lady, in WWI pilots shot at each other mid flight with their sidearms. We are way past that now. Armor on planes (air superiority jets especially) is pretty much useless, a missile is going to do serious damage to a plane if it connects no matter where it hits or how much armor is present. Hell, air superiority fighters need maneuverability, not fucking armor. Goes to show that the money not spent for plane armor is, well, I don't know, possibly going towards body armor for the guys who actually take small arms fire?
And the whole thing about rain messing up the stealth systems? That's hardly as serious of a problem as she is making it out to be. It only messes with the STEALTH SYSTEMS, and this blows it up into something that makes it seem like it destroys the fucking plane. Sure, rain takes away your sneakiness, but you can still fucking fly
And lack of communication to other aircraft? How much more bs will they throw out there? It is hardly a difficult to gets communications up to par with the rest of our forces, no matter what the F-22 has.
And I hope everyone realizes that the reason we have no enemy fighters to fight is because our dogfighters are so damn good. One could argue that the F-15 is still doing fine, and I would agree to a good extent, however that is not the point of this. The need for the fighter may have manifested itself in the Cold War era but the fact that the USSR is dissolved is in no way the defining reason the F-22 is a bad investment. Air superiority fighters are a must in any air force that wishes to have any fucking chance in a fight, let alone survive.
I will agree that it has become a bad investment; costs a fortune now and seeing as the F-35 program is the main focus now, the project is financially a bad idea. Regardless of this though, the plane itself is still great. A step forward for dogfighters for sure.
In conclusion; bad investment now? Yes. Bad plane? Fuck no.
/rant
Quick Edit: To add a bit more to this, I think the main problem with the whole F-22 program was speed. It went too slow and was quickly outdone by the F-35 program, which is preferable to all branches of the military since it is a multi-role fighter. And when production finally kicked in, things moved too fast for their own good, producing problems with the plane (especially financially) and creating too much to handle. The real trump card here though is just the F-35. If that didn't exist right now, I'm sure they would have thought twice about ending the F-22 program. Sure, it needed its improvements, but no plane is ever perfect and especially not at this young age. Given more time, proper resources and more caring attention the F-22 could easily have been a better plane in every field. Alas, the F-35 took that spotlight. And with good reason. I am no real fan of the F-22 myself, but being a bit of a flight nerd I don't like seeing it bashed like this when it deserves some praise in its own right.
Just...*facepalm*.
Political bullshit aside, her 'analysis' of the plane's specs was just laughable. Cannot withstand small arms fire? Look lady, in WWI pilots shot at each other mid flight with their sidearms. We are way past that now. Armor on planes (air superiority jets especially) is pretty much useless, a missile is going to do serious damage to a plane if it connects no matter where it hits or how much armor is present. Hell, air superiority fighters need maneuverability, not fucking armor. Goes to show that the money not spent for plane armor is, well, I don't know, possibly going towards body armor for the guys who actually take small arms fire?
And the whole thing about rain messing up the stealth systems? That's hardly as serious of a problem as she is making it out to be. It only messes with the STEALTH SYSTEMS, and this blows it up into something that makes it seem like it destroys the fucking plane. Sure, rain takes away your sneakiness, but you can still fucking fly
And lack of communication to other aircraft? How much more bs will they throw out there? It is hardly a difficult to gets communications up to par with the rest of our forces, no matter what the F-22 has.
And I hope everyone realizes that the reason we have no enemy fighters to fight is because our dogfighters are so damn good. One could argue that the F-15 is still doing fine, and I would agree to a good extent, however that is not the point of this. The need for the fighter may have manifested itself in the Cold War era but the fact that the USSR is dissolved is in no way the defining reason the F-22 is a bad investment. Air superiority fighters are a must in any air force that wishes to have any fucking chance in a fight, let alone survive.
I will agree that it has become a bad investment; costs a fortune now and seeing as the F-35 program is the main focus now, the project is financially a bad idea. Regardless of this though, the plane itself is still great. A step forward for dogfighters for sure.
In conclusion; bad investment now? Yes. Bad plane? Fuck no.
/rant
Quick Edit: To add a bit more to this, I think the main problem with the whole F-22 program was speed. It went too slow and was quickly outdone by the F-35 program, which is preferable to all branches of the military since it is a multi-role fighter. And when production finally kicked in, things moved too fast for their own good, producing problems with the plane (especially financially) and creating too much to handle. The real trump card here though is just the F-35. If that didn't exist right now, I'm sure they would have thought twice about ending the F-22 program. Sure, it needed its improvements, but no plane is ever perfect and especially not at this young age. Given more time, proper resources and more caring attention the F-22 could easily have been a better plane in every field. Alas, the F-35 took that spotlight. And with good reason. I am no real fan of the F-22 myself, but being a bit of a flight nerd I don't like seeing it bashed like this when it deserves some praise in its own right.
Agreed, The US is paranoid, attacking everybody first before they can even think of attacking them.Lyx said:
I'm pretty sure India isnt trying to assault us militarily and China is our big trading partner. The "threats" they possess are economic, not militarily. America may need a revamping, but I think the jet portion is something we can be a bit more lax on then most think.Aur0ra145 said:
now, OT, this woman is so liberal it makes me head spin and hurt. And I'm a liberal (sometimes). Granted, she's reporting, but you dont have to go all gun ho at it and criticize on that level. You're not making yourself news worthy or informative, just stupid. You take two points and repeat like a broken record using the same word. I mean, I wasnt even focused on everyhitng she was saying by the end, but she must have said stupid five time at least.
Now, I whole heartedly believe we need to continue to be on the up and up in terms of self defense or aggression. But the extremes that both sides are going to take, this women being one, the person I quoted the opposite, are going to wind up being so outlandish. Its AMERICA, we have the biggest and possibly best military standing at this moment, and thats with the outdated equipment. The countries against us dont have the means to build on a mass scale to rival America in an open assault. lets not worry so much about military news like this, when the domestic issues are the important ones at the moment.
The planes we have now are enough to combat anything in the world. No one has shit that would require something as advanced as the F-22, its a fucking money pit. Not to mention the cheaper F-35 is on the way
Who needs that expensive piece of junk?
And then there's that. Again, who needs the F-22, when the F-35 is just as capable, but cheaper? Plus other NATO members participate in it as well, so further R&D cost reductions.soapyshooter said:
I assume you mean the F-35. Long range, yes, the F-35 has a good advantage over a EF. F-35 has stealth, EF does not (except I believe the RAF EF-2000's, I believe they have stealth tech integrated, but I doubt we would see those two planes in combat anyways, so for this, lets say EF gets no stealth). Here, the F-35 will detect the EF first. If the EF can dodge initial long-range missiles and get in close enough to find the F-35, the playing field becomes essentially equal, and comes down to pilot expertise. Both are maneuverable planes in tight dogfights, can't really say much beyond that as it is the pilots choices in a close range dogfight that have a larger impact on its outcome.BlackStar42 said:
Yes it is and with a capable pilot the Typhoon could actually down a F-22. F-22 is a seriously expensive piece of shit. The Typhoon, F-15, Dassualt Rafale and the Indian Sukhoi 30 MKI could all down it. $150 million and still pathetic and an excellent example of America military complex raping taxpayersBlackStar42 said:
Edit: If you were talking about the F-35 then it would give the Typhoon some trouble at long range but at close range they are pretty equally matched. It all comes down to stealth, EF has RCS but F-35 is completely stealthy
Um not quite, the Typhoon would run rings around just about anything the US Military has now.
The aircraft was a technological marvel but in every other way it is a massive failure. 1 hour flight time vs 30 hour on the deck being worked on is stupid and the associated costs and build system for the aircraft probably contributed to this factor. The Americans learnt nothing from the Europeans attempt at farming out an aircraft assembly broken down in to bits given to different countries and then having the whole thing assembled from all those bits at one location. Just like the Americans F35 it lead to difficulty in unifying component standards, required elongated redesign times for anything that didn't work and ended up costing way way over budget, but I suppose at least we got a decent air superity fighter out of it in the end.
Thats great....
Now our only good stealth plane is the F-117. If they cancel that then, shit, they just cancelled my favorite plane.
Now our only good stealth plane is the F-117. If they cancel that then, shit, they just cancelled my favorite plane.
Ehhh...F-22 actually is the best 1v1 fighter in the sky due to being overall faster than anything else b/c of supercruise, and it has the F-117's stealthiness, while being able to dogfight with the best of them. Just about anything in the sky would be dead before it got to the F-22, after which it can dogfight anything else.
JSF is the F-16 to the F-22's F-15. And in all honesty, we don't really need that many F-22s since it has a single purpose which is to beat the crap out of other fighters. Which it does.
But it's a misnomer to say the program is cancelled. We're still getting 180 or so of these uber jets, and they're definitely the most powerful thing in the sky.
Edit: there's a reason this thing is always by far and away the best jet in any flight action game, the fictional superfighters aside.
JSF is the F-16 to the F-22's F-15. And in all honesty, we don't really need that many F-22s since it has a single purpose which is to beat the crap out of other fighters. Which it does.
But it's a misnomer to say the program is cancelled. We're still getting 180 or so of these uber jets, and they're definitely the most powerful thing in the sky.
Edit: there's a reason this thing is always by far and away the best jet in any flight action game, the fictional superfighters aside.
I'm going to take an "A little from column A, a little from column B" approach to this.
First of all, the woman in this video is both annoying and clueless. She misstated (perhaps deliberately) a couple of the aircraft's "weaknesses"; I don't think there's an aircraft anywhere that can maintain stealth operations in rain (try as you might, you can't make the rain go around your aircraft), and no fighter aircraft (as opposed to attack aircraft, which are meant for ground-based operations, such as the venerable A-10) should ever have to worry about small arms fire- and it is almost impossible to fit a fighter with enough armor to withstand the guns of other fighter aircraft, let alone a direct missile impact, without turning the jet into a brick. Manuverability is far more useful in dogfights. Add to this the fact that the United States is not the only nation with a respectable air force, and while we may be in relatively peaceful times, you do not sit back and rely on older technology for the sole reason that you're not actively fighting against another force right this minute. You don't wait to be outmatched in order to work on better equipment; you work on better equipment in order to be the one in the superior role when things go bad.
[small]Also, seriously. Armamentarium [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/armamentarium]? "Arsenal" was too low-brow for you, lady?[/small]
However, I don't believe that all of these complaints are invalid. Politics should not intrude on proper production of military hardware, and this plan of spreading production across more than 80% of the country could only have been politically motivated ("let's get us some jobs and rack up the votes!"). The design itself might have been pushed too soon, seeing that the F-35 is proving to be less expensive and more versatile; I might have preferred that the F-35 platform have two variants- one geared towards air, the other ground- to promote familiarity with the design and greater cost-effectiveness without a "Jack of all trades, master of none" issue, as well as easier repairs and procurement of replacement parts. But I'm not an aircraft engineer, so I don't know if that would've been possible.
The Raptor wasn't a bad idea; it was a good idea handled badly. The problem is that the military establishment sometimes has a hard time realizing when one of its projects isn't going so well. And while a total force drawdown would be a good idea, given the world political situation and America's financial difficulties, there still is a necessity to maintain some level of readiness and technological advantage.
First of all, the woman in this video is both annoying and clueless. She misstated (perhaps deliberately) a couple of the aircraft's "weaknesses"; I don't think there's an aircraft anywhere that can maintain stealth operations in rain (try as you might, you can't make the rain go around your aircraft), and no fighter aircraft (as opposed to attack aircraft, which are meant for ground-based operations, such as the venerable A-10) should ever have to worry about small arms fire- and it is almost impossible to fit a fighter with enough armor to withstand the guns of other fighter aircraft, let alone a direct missile impact, without turning the jet into a brick. Manuverability is far more useful in dogfights. Add to this the fact that the United States is not the only nation with a respectable air force, and while we may be in relatively peaceful times, you do not sit back and rely on older technology for the sole reason that you're not actively fighting against another force right this minute. You don't wait to be outmatched in order to work on better equipment; you work on better equipment in order to be the one in the superior role when things go bad.
[small]Also, seriously. Armamentarium [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/armamentarium]? "Arsenal" was too low-brow for you, lady?[/small]
However, I don't believe that all of these complaints are invalid. Politics should not intrude on proper production of military hardware, and this plan of spreading production across more than 80% of the country could only have been politically motivated ("let's get us some jobs and rack up the votes!"). The design itself might have been pushed too soon, seeing that the F-35 is proving to be less expensive and more versatile; I might have preferred that the F-35 platform have two variants- one geared towards air, the other ground- to promote familiarity with the design and greater cost-effectiveness without a "Jack of all trades, master of none" issue, as well as easier repairs and procurement of replacement parts. But I'm not an aircraft engineer, so I don't know if that would've been possible.
The Raptor wasn't a bad idea; it was a good idea handled badly. The problem is that the military establishment sometimes has a hard time realizing when one of its projects isn't going so well. And while a total force drawdown would be a good idea, given the world political situation and America's financial difficulties, there still is a necessity to maintain some level of readiness and technological advantage.
