It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Raptors Fatal Flaw

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Ypu have reason, this flaw seems too obvious, but don't think that only because you are not an engineer they will think about a possible problem before you. Sometimes it's surprising how people that is a real expert can forget to examine something... of course, most times they see a problem sooner or later, but nobody is perfect... to see that you only have to see how many times a car manufacturer has to recall a car to the factory because there is a design problem with a small piece... or how many times you use something and think... whay have they done it that way if I can think a thousand ways to make it more effective and cheaper??
But of course, if the bays of the F22 could be a problem, they would have thought about it, and if they didn't do, I suppose they realized about the problem in the testing of the plane... what I said some pages ago is that maybe the solution could be a "do not open bays beyond this speed" but someone posted a pic of a missile launched beyond mach 1, so I suppose they found another solution... I don't think the plane crashed just after taking the pic




posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Cheers AMM, some people think I'm anti-American you know


same case with me



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

STOP GOING ONTO COPYING!!!



Yes sir i will, subject to the condition that someone will not rake it up again.

Infact it was centurion who initiated it all.

Anyway thanks for pointing out.

Coming back to the thread, the proposition of the raptor's fatal flaw is quiet silly. The F-22 is a 50+ billion dollar project and it would be silly to assume that some of the best brains in the world working on it would overlook something like this.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
How much times have you mentioned the mig-33 and FC-1
wheres the edvidence??????

This is my first time posting about the Kaveri engine.

90 mki already in service.??? are you kidding

Yeah how much of your airforce at the pakistani border.??? half.
how is 40 su-30mki going to do againest 400+ su-27 su-30 planes.

Even if india has a better fighter. that advantage gets cancelled out by the missile range.

as for your arrogance

a average indian hyping up failed projects.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Lets stop bringing up copying. You say China has a numerical advantage only because of its MiG-21s. Well, most of India's AF is made up of MiG-21s too, many of them not upgraded to Bison or Bis standard. And, India has about 120 Su-30s, with only about 50 of them MKI standard. Compare this to the 300-400 Su-27s/30s China has, In the event of war, China will probably use all of these Su-27s armed with R-27s and Su-30s armed with R-77s. The R-77 has also been cleared for use on the J-10s, and future production J-10s will be armed with the R-77s.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   




Look at the positions of air bases. Only Lhasa that holds J-7's (mig-21) is close to India. Most of China's bases are towards Taiwan. While India has large numbers of air bases with top of the line jets close to the chinese border.

go check out the features of indian stealthy upgraded bisons. They might be Mig-21's but are loaded with the top israeli, french, russian, indian aveonics and are coated with Russian RAM and have an RCS reduction of 13-15 times. They also fire BVR missiles and are waaay superior to Chinese J-7's.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dont know which mythical missile that China uses makes them superior as claimed by chinawhite, but India use the top Russian BVR missiles, and will operate the Meteor in some time too. India will also recieve the AAMRAAM if it goes in for block 70 F-16's.

And the J-10's capabilities are unknown. The Israeli LAVI project which the J-10 has copied was cancelled(despite spending 2+billion $ on it)as the capabilities of the LAVI were no way close to that of F-16.

The FC-1 is the world's cheapest(in cost terms) aircraft and is primarily inted for export to countries like Pakistan, Zimbabwe, etc which cannot afford better planes.

Please guys dont turn this into a Indian AF vs Chinese AF thread. Both countries are not even close to having a war or something like that.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
The FC-1 is the world's cheapest(in cost terms) aircraft and is primarily inted for export to countries like Pakistan, Zimbabwe, etc which cannot afford better planes.


You sure about that? If its cheaper than MiG-21s, this might be the next big thing in the aircraft export market, the SD-10s are better than the R-60s, Griffo S-7 radar better than the Jaybird radar, and a lot of other things which are better than any old Russian junk that almost all the other 3rd world countries operate.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy


Look at the positions of air bases. Only Lhasa that holds J-7's (mig-21) is close to India. Most of China's bases are towards Taiwan. While India has large numbers of air bases with top of the line jets close to the chinese border.

go check out the features of indian stealthy upgraded bisons. They might be Mig-21's but are loaded with the top israeli, french, russian, indian aveonics and are coated with Russian RAM and have an RCS reduction of 13-15 times. They also fire BVR missiles and are waaay superior to Chinese J-7's.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dont know which mythical missile that China uses makes them superior as claimed by chinawhite, but India use the top Russian BVR missiles, and will operate the Meteor in some time too. India will also recieve the AAMRAAM if it goes in for block 70 F-16's.

And the J-10's capabilities are unknown. The Israeli LAVI project which the J-10 has copied was cancelled(despite spending 2+billion $ on it)as the capabilities of the LAVI were no way close to that of F-16.

The FC-1 is the world's cheapest(in cost terms) aircraft and is primarily inted for export to countries like Pakistan, Zimbabwe, etc which cannot afford better planes.

Please guys dont turn this into a Indian AF vs Chinese AF thread. Both countries are not even close to having a war or something like that.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]


i have already posted about airbases.


China has constructed 14 major air bases on the Tibetan Plateau, and a score of tactical airstrips. These bases give the Chinese air force control of Tibet's air space, the forward edge of battle in the event of war with India, and the capability to fly sustained combat operations over India's north and strike all India's northern cities, including Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta. Chinese electronic intelligence atop the plateau also confers an important advantage of combat information and battle management in any, air war. The high altitude of the airfields in Tibet is frequently suggested as precluding effective PLAAF air operations against India. The PLAAF may be able to overcome this problem through aerial refuelling, with strike aircraft taking off from lower-altitude airfields further away, and refuelling over Tibet for strikes at airfields or other targets in northern India.


that map was not a refernce to chinese airbases. there is a lot more than one

did i make any mention of better missiles. i said china and indias currently deployed missiles are the same. r-77

the chinese j-10 is not copied of the LAVI. if you want to start this china vs india thread be my guest. .

The FC-1 has a edge over the LCA..(indias top fighter not even finished yet)



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
If you think the IAF has aerial superiority, I'll show you why the Chinese will have it intead.

PLAAF- 350 Su-27s/Su-30s

IAF - 120 Su-30s

The PLAAF has 350 Su-27s and Su-30s. Although they have inferior radar systems and avonics compared to the IAF's Su-30MKIs, the Su-27s armed with R-27s and Su-30s armed with R-77s are nearly 3 times the number of the IAF's Su-30s, and in any air battle with India, the PLAAF will have the advantage. The radar and avonics will not matter much. Try this scenario.

2 IAF Su-30MKIs spot 2 Chinese Su-30MKKs. (assuming no use of AWACs) The Su-30 MKIs see the Chinese ones from 250km away, and move in to get a R-77 shot. The Chinese ones spot the Indian Su-30s away at 150km, and also postion themselves for a shot. Given that both AFs have R-77s and R-73s, it will all be down to superior tactics and pilots. Don't tell me the IAF has better pilots/ PLAAF has lousier pilots, nobody has really challenged the PLAAF. And don't talk about airbases either. China has about 14 airbases near the Tibetian border.

Also, if you want to talk about LCA, I'll go into it. First, lets start off with missles. Exactly what missles have been cleared for the LCA? R-77s? or even R-27s? what about those Meteor missles you've been talking about? While you guys are busy thinking about what missles to fit on the LCA, the R-77 has already been approved for use on the J-10, and SD-10 (PL-12) approved for use on the Fc-1. LCA has better avonics, I'll give you that, but until now the MMR radar has not seen any real battle. Meanwhile, the Griffo S-7 on the FC-1 is based on the Griffo 2000, which is in turn based on the American APG-68, a battle proven radar on the F-15.

And you also pointed out that the MiG-21 Bison will be better than the FC-1. I can't refute that statement, but according to many (not posters, FAS and globalsecurity in fact), the FC-1 is better than the LCA, which is supposed to replace the MiG-21. This doesn't make any sense at all, India's up and coming multirole fighter is not as good as an upgraded 1960s' Soviet design.

And also, who says PLAAF can't do A2A refuelling? Just look at this picture. A picture speaks a thousand words





[edit on 26/5/05 by W4rl0rD]

[edit on 26/5/05 by W4rl0rD]

[edit on 26/5/05 by W4rl0rD]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Also, you mentioned India having UAVs scouting the area. Guess what? China has them too. Here are the UAVs, don't say anything before reading this page first : www.sinodefence.com...

Harpy attack UAV:


China has acquired some unknown number of the Israel Aerospace Industry (IAI) Harpy unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in 1994. The deal was not revealed until late 2004, when Washington was reported to have pressured the Israeli government to ‘roll back’ its defence relations with China. According to the reports, the U.S. intelligence spotted the PLA deploying Harpy UAV in its joint exercise held near the Taiwan Strait in 2004.


ASN 206:


The ASN-206 can be used for day/night aerial reconnaissance, battlefield surveillance, target positioning, artillery spotting, border patrol, nuclear radiation sampling, aerial photography and prospecting, and electronic countermeasures. It is one of the most advanced tactical UAV systems in service with the PLA.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Stealth,

"Please guys dont turn this into a Indian AF vs Chinese AF thread. Both countries are not even close to having a war or something like that. "

Neither are the US and China but that does not stop the ever growing number of threads on that topic.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Again, the topic is:
Raptors Fatal Flaw

Not about who is copying what...
Not about anything else but this topic.

The next deviation from the topic will result in this topic being closed.





seekerof



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
So yea, the Raptor, whatever fatal flaw this bird may have, will only be seen when it goes into battle. We won't truely know what will happen until it actually does, I guess that's what Tests are for, but the wargames don't simulate war time 100 percent, Wargames are useful and will always be a part of tests and training, but the actual thing is better, I mean, most fighter aircraft; their biggest flaws are shown in battle, when in battle.

And alot of times it might be human error, not the machine itself, so there are alot of factors we have to account for.

Anyone agree?

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   
i dont think this would be a big problem.

heres my view.

1 raptor vs 2 unknown enemy planes

raptor spots target at 160km goes in fast. thens slows down to below mach1
fires both missiles thens turns and flys away after revealing position



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
If you can think of a better fatal flaw, name cause, the inable to launch and defend itself will make it very unpopular with its pilots.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by gooseuk]


Defenseless? Chances are its still going to have a gun. aircraft guns are invaluble, they cheaper than missiles, and they affective



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by aerospaceweb

Originally posted by gooseuk
This got me thinking, I have heard much about the the Raptor and its assocated supercruise ability, my point is, will there be an offensive limitation on the Raptor while in Supercruise mode? AKA is the Raptor helpless while still in super cruise? Due to the fact that the Raptor would have to open the aircrafts payload doors INTO the slip stream, there by having its doors ripped in the related slipstream of the aircraft at supercruise.


The F-22 has repeatedly launched both AIM-9 and AIM-120 missiles at supersonic speeds during weapon separation and operational flight testing. The first shot was an AIM-9 launched at Mach 1.1 in August 2002, and subsequent shots were taken up to Mach 2. Perhaps the most extreme launch conditions have been at supersonic speed while the plane was pulling high g's and rotating up to 100 degrees per second. These test shots have cleared the F-22 launch envelope while proving that there are no structural problems or safe separation issues.


Just to add a punctuation mark to my earlier comments on this topic, I stumbled across the following quote in a report on the F-22 flight test program. I think it sums up this "fatal flaw" discussion quite well.



...it is important to note that the F/A-22 flight test program has been one of the most aggressive and most successful in history. Dozens of missiles were launched with the majority of them under extreme maneuver conditions beyond the capabilities of any other aircraft (and, indeed, beyond the initial design requirements of the missiles themselves). During the nearly 80 flight releases so far, no contact between aircraft and store has occurred, no significant damage to aircraft or personnel from a flight event has occurred, no unsafe conditions related to the aircraft that had not been anticipated through the ground tests and simulations have been identified, and simulations have either matched the flight data or been used to identify flight anomalies for every event. Credit for the outstanding success of the flight test effort belongs to all F/A-22 CTF members.


Those 80 releases include AIM-9M Sidewinder launches from the side weapons bays, AIM-120C AMRAAM launches from the main weapons bays, GBU-32 JDAM ejections from the main weapons bays, and fuel tank jettisons from wing pylons. Many of the Sidewinder and AMRAAM launches in particular occurred at very stressing and extreme conditions where no other plane in the world has ever launched a weapon before. Not only were no "fatal flaws" revealed, but there were hardly even any minor flaws uncovered in the aircraft's weapon systems.

[edit on 28-5-2005 by aerospaceweb]



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
>>
This got me thinking, I have heard much about the the Raptor and its assocated supercruise ability, my point is, will there be an offensive limitation on the Raptor while in Supercruise mode? AKA is the Raptor helpless while still in super cruise? Due to the fact that the Raptor would have to open the aircrafts payload doors INTO the slip stream, there by having its doors ripped in the related slipstream of the aircraft at supercruise.
>>

The turbulent boundary layer is still effectively much slower and less challenging than the normal freestream over the wetted parts of the wing and pressure dynamic zone testing using CFD and wind tunnels will largely allow you to abate the worst effects, simply by erecting a smallish spoiler in front of the principal cavity structure which keeps the flow smooth and out of the bay.

Of course since we've been doing this since the Century Series (F-105 and F-111 large internal gravity weapons plus F-102 and F-106 Falcon shooters and of course the mighty YF-12 with it's huge GAR-9's) the struggle is not quite as 'new a game' as many would like to have us believe. Which is not to say I don't find a freakin' BARN DOOR approach to yaw and directional coupled 'keeling' problems to be rather crude. I suppose scissor hinges couldn't meet the VLO requirement...

>>
The F-22 has repeatedly launched both AIM-9 and AIM-120 missiles at supersonic speeds during weapon separation and operational flight testing. The first shot was an AIM-9 launched at Mach 1.1 in August 2002, and subsequent shots were taken up to Mach 2. Perhaps the most extreme launch conditions have been at supersonic speed while the plane was pulling high g's and rotating up to 100 degrees per second. These test shots have cleared the F-22 launch envelope while proving that there are no structural problems or safe separation issues.
>>

Which is utterly ridiculous. Because the faster you go, the less control over not only own but weapon vectors you have which means that you may well expend /more/ energy separating the weapon and getting to to fly across a circle described by the altitude PLUS Mach point differentials between target and shooter. Even before the exotic bore and launch angle dynamics of the side bays. Furthermore, the AIM-9M, even the dash 8/9 have little or no HOBS capability or lockon after launch options which means you have a roughly 27` boresight, prelock and 40-45` after acquisition which means your an utter idiot for bringing a 10km weapon into upwards of a 7km alitude differentialed fight at supersonic speeds because once the nose goes down, you ARE ramped into the fight. With a hulking cloud shadow of an airframe.

AIM-120 (especially the C6/7/8 models with directional warhead, 2 way datalink and potentially another 6" motor extension) are mildly better but only if you _quickly_ integrate ADRM type tail Pif-Paf puffer jet controls to rapidly bring the weapon around to exploit the wider bore and inherent LOAL launch options.

And without the cheek arrays or AIRST/EOSS gear, even that is a 'pitbull in shaken gunny sack' situation for cueing (a detached illuminator may help here).

The sad reality then being that max-G dynamic shots are themselves COUNTER PRODUCTIVE because they flat plate the airframe visually and bring the split hotside/coldside features into (banked) easy view while ruining carefully controlled planform alignments both with dynamic rate-of-change aspecting and the massive vortices that are likely to bloom-form.
Not to mention the utter moronicism of the deployed control surfaces (gaps galore) spoiling the surface envelope to scatter travelling waves all over the place.

>>
Just to add a punctuation mark to my earlier comments on this topic, I stumbled across the following quote in a report on the F-22 flight test program. I think it sums up this "fatal flaw" discussion quite well.



...it is important to note that the F/A-22 flight test program has been one of the most aggressive and most successful in history. Dozens of missiles were launched with the majority of them under extreme maneuver conditions beyond the capabilities of any other aircraft (and, indeed, beyond the initial design requirements of the missiles themselves). During the nearly 80 flight releases so far, no contact between aircraft and store has occurred, no significant damage to aircraft or personnel from a flight event has occurred, no unsafe conditions related to the aircraft that had not been anticipated through the ground tests and simulations have been identified, and simulations have either matched the flight data or been used to identify flight anomalies for every event. Credit for the outstanding success of the flight test effort belongs to all F/A-22 CTF members.

>>

Sigh, which is why an overstress condition in dynamic maneuver (probably caused by an overeager beaver yanking past the limiters into 'Mongo Mode') put something like 4-5 MILLION dollars worth of damage on the airframe itself. Which is why another airframe, completely departed when the pilot tried to play 'who can go slowest' with a jet that weighed a minimum 30,000lbs less than he did (the idiot in question having less than 20hrs on-type, deciding to mix things up with his F-16 chase and getting fanged into a rolling scissors at high alpha).

The Raptor is not perfect. It is unlikely, now, that it will ever have the continuing flight test funding to ever /be/ fully wrung out. And given it is supposed to last 40-45 years in a total fleet inventory of less than 200 airframes, we _cannot afford_ to have pilots flinging it about like a 'dogfighter'. Because that is not what it is good at. Not what it should be doing (Air Dominance is 80% DEAD, 20% AAW, all of it 'wings level, nose on the horizon' prequisited for VLO).

Rather it must be treated like a priceless vintage Sports Car to keep it minimally fatigued and maximally 'useful' (parts paid for) to a service which has sold it's honor if not it's soul to the particularly worthless JSF. That means (IMO) 8 T-50 jets to maintain proficiencies and provide 'excitement' to the big children. And 12 F/A-22 to play ramp umbrella _except_ when called to war. Properly equipped (no sensors, just 'wireless' DACM+OBEWS) and with high thrust in the F414 or C101 category instead of the pathetically dated F404, the 'also Lockheed' (via Daewoo) T-50 gives you the option of equal or better flight performance in the 'dogfight envelope' (less gas as mass to push around the corner) and would also allow U.S. to finally put the past it T-38C pork roast to bed.

>>
Those 80 releases include AIM-9M Sidewinder launches from the side weapons bays, AIM-120C AMRAAM launches from the main weapons bays, GBU-32 JDAM ejections from the main weapons bays, and fuel tank jettisons from wing pylons. Many of the Sidewinder and AMRAAM launches in particular occurred at very stressing and extreme conditions where no other plane in the world has ever launched a weapon before. Not only were no "fatal flaws" revealed, but there were hardly even any minor flaws uncovered in the aircraft's weapon systems.
>>

Snort. Have they launched a SINGLE BVRAAM? How about a MALD/MALI? Or an ASARM? Or a GBU-39/40? How about even that wonder weapon the AIM-9X (20km seeker on 10km motor)?

NO!?!?!?

Then they have no appropriate weapons mix for the F/A-22 properly Seek Eagle defined. Because all the USEFUL weapons are still out on the horizon and the present mix is like the AA-8 Aphids on the MiG-31 Firefox. Laughable for their datedness and a sure and certain indicator of AF higher ups ensuring the 'voter base' of piloted airframes by keeping the Raptor from competing with the mission of the F-35 (a mission at which it is likely to be superior btw.).

And to be fair, Aviation Week has specifically noted that the Small Diameter Bomb _may not_ properly clear the airframe at the upper ends of highly supersonic cruise. And this in turn may take as much as 10-15nm off the top end of the range footprint. Since the Raptor already has a MINIMUM 20nm advantage over any subsonic cruise glide weapon kicker, this doesn't really mean much 50 vs. 30nm wise. But it is there.

Most likely because hte AIM-120's not only weight almost another 100lbs more distributed across a much longer, more properly mass-balanced, aeroshape. But also because they can be extended /thru/ the 'slipstream' and shot like any other rail weapon. Rail launches being about 200% more reliable than ejector pops.

CONCLUSION:
Supersonic performance as a function of missile pols is like putting a spear into an atlatl. The 'slingshot effect' may very well kick you up a notch (50% at high altitude, much less at lower ones where the F/A-22's Bismaleimide resins have lower thermal ratings than the basic aluminum of say an F-111) for total reach and time to reach. But the reality is that, if I allow a gas or battery powered RC airplane /freefly/ out of my hand, for equivalent weight, it will go MUCH further (say 150%) than the strongest athlete can chuck a javelin, atlatl 'running start' or no.

The optimum illustration of this being the ZADM-160B MALD which weighs around 250lbs but can fly out up to 460km/250nm. Compared to the MASSIVE 800lb GAR-9/AIM-47 which could fly a mere 160km/100nm.

This is what makes SSC or Sustained Supersonic Cruise so very deceptive in it's utility. Because obviously the best combination is an extended burn missile on the same platform so that you attain 150+50%. Yet, -how many- such shots are available in war? There were many cases where the ability to reach over the enemy SAM traps and get wheel in well kills would have been _very_ nice during both the 1991 action and all the prolonged paranoia that followed it. But only to the extent that the EID tree allowed it. And only IF there were not in fact _other allied_ strike and supporting mission types ahead of the vulnerable Air Superiority (F-15C) types that could not give the enemy a freebee loft + longrange acquisition shot of their own.

At which point you have to acknowledge that the F/A-22's VLO /may/ allow a 'closer approach' to a defensive WEZ but only -if- that approach is controlled rather than the headlong dash of an SSC run.

WHAT THEN is the purpose of SSC?

Simple.

To have the thrust to get a big load of gas and muntions up out of the draggy lower air and into the mid-30s before flying out 800nm or more in a gradually increasing 'burn up' profile for height and mach point (1.3 to start, 1.5+ at end). Before hitting a tanker 'an hour later' just short of the range at which enemy fighters or lofted SAMs can flyout to pose a 'Luftwaffe over Low Country' type threat. And then fly another 300-350nm over the the fence to sling-bombed GBU-39 target before coming back to the tanker and getting RTB fuel for an all high-fast (1.6+ @ 50K+) run home. 'In time for lunch'.

The F/A-22 with it's nominally 20-25,000lbs of fuel (equivalent to an F-15C with all three bags) but also with TWICE THE THRUST AND WING AREA of the F-35, can make this happen. So that 'Global Strike' into access denied areas doesn't occur on a 7-10hr subsonic 'there and back again' /crawl/ during which _anything can happen_ (as a function of interdicting tankers or exhausting the fuel of escorts with early attack using S-400 SAM or longrange Su-30 class fighters).

Such is what SSC is about because, along with functional (not perfect) VLO and _superior_ standoff weapons classes, it allows you to double or triple the sortie rates with a small force and 3-4hr total period mission evolutions, even if the pilot manning ratio continues it's decline from a nominal 1.7:1 at the height of the Cold War 80's to the less than 1.25:1 we are now faced with.

Don't mistake the elegance of logistics for the hype of adrenalism. Because wars are won in the will _and the ton mile_. Long before the 'tactics' of air combat ever dictates a single AMRAAM must leave it's parent fighter.

Unfortunately, until the USAF flat out stops LYING (by omission or otherwise) about the Raptors true range-for-speed capabilities, we will never be able to see how it dwarfs the fraud that is JSF (and any other jet for that matter) for 'getting thar fustest with the mostest'. Given that the weapons needed to _do the bestest_ once it arrives will never be type qualified or even guaranteed for production until that happens, you are in a catch-22 circumstance by which the U.S. armed forces are stuck with an inadequate airframe and a smattering of 'Air Dominance Escorts' insufficient to protect it. Or going to UCAVs for the massed-bomber (8th Air Force styled interdiction) capability. Over the dead bodies of every living 'fighter pilot' in our armed forces.

What a 257 BILLION DOLLAR felony (in progress).


KPl.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I have video of the Raptor launching the Aim-9 and Aim-120 missiles would any one like to see it? And I can guarantee you that it was going supersonic and the bay doors were not ripped apart.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I'd love to see it. send me a u2u and I'll give you my email and you can send it to me if you don't post it here.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
If the F-22 has one big problem, it's $. In today's world of budget cuts and "Bean Counters", large price tags draw fire from congress. Look at the B-2, a truely revolutionary aircraft that serves a critical role in the defense of the USA. At one time the US Air Force concidered buying enough B-2' to replace all of the B-52's. However this never came to because of penny-pinching politicians.

Did you know, origionally the Air Force though of ordering 750 F-22's, but now we'll be lucky if we see the 339 now planned?

Politics is powerful enought to overcome anything!

FUN FACT: In the Early Star Wars movies Darth Sidious, the evil lord of the Sith, hide from the Jedi as a politcian, using the name Palpatine! Beware of Politics, it much more dangerous than it seems!




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join