The Raptor is dead.
- Thread starter SilentHunter7
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you had taken the time to read all the quoted posts and not just the posts which added to your opinion, you would know.SilentHunter7 said:
Way to dodge the question. And prove you don't know what you're talking about. Had you taken the time to read the actual discussion before you put words in my mouth, you would know that my concern isn't North Korea itself. But rather China's reaction to having a full scale war right on their border, which, in the 50's, was to intervene, by declaring war on the UN forces. You would also know that my point is that it doesn't matter if the possibility of war, even a proxy war, between global powers today is so remote, that I probably have a better chance of being struck by lightening with a winning lottery ticket in my hand. What matters is that the possibility will always exist, and we should be ready to meet that eventuality, no matter how implausible it may seem. But you wouldn't know I meant that, would you? Because you were too busy trying to sound witty with your 1 sentence posts, and non-answers.Music Mole said:
I did not dodge your question, I told you to read the quotes (which you obviously didn't read to begin with) and look for the word "superpower" which was in quotes. If I wanted to waste time writing a wall of text trying to prove a point I would do so, I have better things to do however.SilentHunter7 said:
"Maybe we should elect the dead Ronald Reagan."666thHeretic said:
That said, "It is just tradition for congress to say one thing and do another."
In an effort to keep the peace, let's just say that if we do need a new president, then we will have to wait for 2012. Until then, we can complain, but let's try to be friends.Ice Storm said:
I'm just saying, we should use our money to fund SETI, so that we can find an aggressive alien race to beat the living @#$%^& out of. We will unite as a species, use the salvaged alien technology to create a new golden age of man. Unified by our preparation for another intergalactic war... I said WORLD PEACE, not Inter-Galactic peace, you prick. Don't call people idiots, because you don't know to what extent people want peace.Gormourn said:
I once tried to buy a bag of world peace from a man in Djibouti. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprese_salad"]It smelt vaguely of basil.[/a]Chiefmon said:
NO, you misread, They "SHOULD" be in Korea. as in have a reason to be there.Marcus Attell said:
Well the budget increased because they're gearing things more towards the wars that we're currently fighting. We're not dogfighting with MIG-29s, we're dropping ordinance on ground troops. There's no reason to sink money into a specialized aircraft designed for the most part for dogfighting and high-speed aerial maneuvers. Especially planes that require 30 man hours of repair for every hour in flight. They work extremely well when needed, but those situations are stretched few and far between. I would hope that the government would use any money saved off scrapping more F-22s on body armor, and armor plating for the HMMVS. Something that could actually save lives. And maybe replacing the 5.56 rifles with with a 7.62 rifle so they can actually kill people instead of wounding them temporarily.
A note on the JSF vs. F22: Firstly, to actually utilise the A-10 without it being blown out of the sky by any marauding MiG-21, you need air supremacy. Not even superiority - you need to ground every last enemy plane before you can start sending something that slow into enemy airspace.]
Secondly: On body armour, infantry weapons and other matters brought up by Vern - in part, I agree with you. However, the simple fact is that a superpower, such as the United States, can not look to merely the war that is in front of it, but must rather consider all other potential conflcits. Everybody claims that 'It's useless', when, in fact, the correct statement would be 'It is useless in the present situations in Afghanistan and Iraq'.
However, one cannot put all one's eggs in one basket, as it were. For example - those who favour the 'global nuclear war', theory - what would happen, if, say, tommorrow, someone were to develop an effective, easy and simply countermeasure to ICMB's? I'm not sure what, but let's say that the Russians, EU, China and the US all, simeltanteously, develop an anti-ballistic missile system that renders ballistic missile useless.
Oh, shit. Now, warfare is going to be decieded not by nukes, but by good, old-fashioned brutality. In short, the Raptor just went from being useless, to being an outright neccesity.
On the body armour - sadly, in Afghanistan and Iraq, body armour would not save our troops, mainly because the IEDs, mortars and RPG rounds the insurgents use put out so much shrapnel that it will either go through or bypass the armour via it's weak spots. Also, a 7.62mm rifle would be effective at long range, but would be a disadvantage in the short-ranged firefights our troops get into simply due to it's higher recoil during automatic fire.
Secondly: On body armour, infantry weapons and other matters brought up by Vern - in part, I agree with you. However, the simple fact is that a superpower, such as the United States, can not look to merely the war that is in front of it, but must rather consider all other potential conflcits. Everybody claims that 'It's useless', when, in fact, the correct statement would be 'It is useless in the present situations in Afghanistan and Iraq'.
However, one cannot put all one's eggs in one basket, as it were. For example - those who favour the 'global nuclear war', theory - what would happen, if, say, tommorrow, someone were to develop an effective, easy and simply countermeasure to ICMB's? I'm not sure what, but let's say that the Russians, EU, China and the US all, simeltanteously, develop an anti-ballistic missile system that renders ballistic missile useless.
Oh, shit. Now, warfare is going to be decieded not by nukes, but by good, old-fashioned brutality. In short, the Raptor just went from being useless, to being an outright neccesity.
On the body armour - sadly, in Afghanistan and Iraq, body armour would not save our troops, mainly because the IEDs, mortars and RPG rounds the insurgents use put out so much shrapnel that it will either go through or bypass the armour via it's weak spots. Also, a 7.62mm rifle would be effective at long range, but would be a disadvantage in the short-ranged firefights our troops get into simply due to it's higher recoil during automatic fire.
all taxes should be equal i have never studied the constitution to extreme measures but it does stat that every one is equal and should be taxed equally, you could say that the income tax is unconstitutional but they would never get rid of it, Obama's policies are shady and unfair, i would be happy to pay the same taxes as a rich person as long as they were equalasinann said:
and as for the F-22, that's what mis-information does, I still believe that money would be better spent on ten F-22's so they can be improved and used as apposed to building one B-2
The first post is so wrong on so many levels, he must be a republican. First off, they did not, I repeat, DID NOT scrap the Raptor. Second, just read this snippet from the article, "The president and defense secretary have strongly opposed the creation of new F-22s, $140 million fighter jets which have not performed a single mission in the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan. The military already has 187 F-22s at its disposal." The military has 187 F-22's at its disposal, but i guess those 7 extra F-22's were the ones that were gonna win the war for us. Third, youre talking out of your ass and its lame, learn to read and stop interpreting things as you see fit, you sound like a catholic priest.
You obviously haven't even read the amendments, this one doesn't require an in-depth study of the constitution. The sixteenth amendment gives the federal government the power to levy and collect income taxes. That's all the sixteenth amendment does, it states it in very plain English and isn't really open to interpretation.wwjdftw said:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
They don't have to levy it evenly, and what would you rather have, 75% of $15,000, or 50% of $350,000 (the point where it hits 50%.)
As to the money that would have been spent on the F-22, it's not going to the B-2, it's going to supply ground troops with weapons and body armor (you know, that stuff parents have been buying for their soldiers because the military can't get funding for it because it's all going on a jet we won't use for the next 50 years) for the types of wars that have been fought over the last 15 years (counter-insurgencies and "peacekeeping.")
Other money is going to a more rounded fighter (the F-35) that the air force and marines DO want, is capable of more than air-to-air dogfighting (which hasn't happened in more than small amounts since Vietnam) and can hit ground targets (something the Raptor is almost completely incapable of.)
I'm not saying the Raptor is a bad jet for what it was built for, unfortunately, it was built for a war that was never fought. The Raptor was designed in the 70's and 80's when the U.S.S.R. was still a valid threat.
The pentagon is trying to get funding eliminated for the new presidential helicopter too, but again, it's research is being done in too many different congressional districts to get congress to actually cut it out of the budget. U.S. weapons procurement has nearly nothing to do with what the military actually wants, and everything to do with where congress wants to spend the money.
It might be an idea, he scared the hell out of people when he was alive. Not because he was inherently evil or frightening, but because he went senile some time during his first term (and we still reelected him.) We never knew what he was going to do next, walk out into the rose garden in his underpants wearing a pot on his head for a press conference or hit the button and end the world.Bulletinmybrain said:
"We shall find peace. We shall hear angels. We shall see the sky sparkling with diamonds."Chiefmon said:
~ Anton Chekov
edit:
I somehow felt this was about L4D
No fighter could lug around even one of the GAU-8/A's.xmetatr0nx said:
The A-10 is basically a flying gun!
Back on topic. Cutbacks aren't the end of the world, when was the last time America went to war against even a semi-functioning airforce? Even the first Gulf War saw the Iraqis burying their jets in the desert so we didn't blow any more of them up!
Oh and I'll stick my oar into the Vs debate too. At range the Raptor wins...........up close the Typhoon wins. But that'll never happen, I thought we were supposed to be friends!