Originally posted by WestPoint23
If you don't mind Stellar I'd like to take longer to respond to some of Riccioni's allegations against the F-22.
I never get to all the post's i want to address so take whatever time you require and make it accurate.
Yet it will result in a better ability to conduct missions much more effectively and in a dominant matter
Neither the B-1,B-2, F-117, did and i find it interesting that the mission requirements are being reduced to make the plane seem more efficient that
what it is supposed to replace. It's just not accurate to state that such reduced numbers of planes could possible make up for the sortie ratio of
far larger numbers of more efficient planes and the contractors and so called 'specialist' should stop trying to sell us these ideas if they wish to
retain some credibility. .
Both are needed, which is why there are programs underway to address both situations.
Who are they supposed to fight when the USSR now supposedly only operates two dozen, or less, nuclear submarines when these LA boats were supposedly
so far superior? Neither of these programs are required to fight the alleged 'axis of evil' or 'terrorism' in general and one can only wonder why
they attempt to sell the sea wolf by claiming that it can land special forces troops on beaches from submerged positions offshore. If these machines
are allegedly not required to fight the third world, even if that does not always turn out to be case, who are they intended to be used against?
Did I just not say that we need more F-22's? Still, having a few Raptor's and a large force of other systems is sufficient for most likely
combat scenarios. It's not like the Russians or Chinese can win an air war against us either.
Well i believe you indicated that the 170 that will be bought will somehow be sufficient but you say that a large force of other planes will be
required when it's not all that clear where this force will come from! I hope the JSF program turns out better but i have my doubts and fears
concerning the misapplication and theft of that programs funds.
A total of 131 Raptors are currently on contract, and 101 Raptors have completed final assembly at the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, Ga.
Deliveries to the Air Force total 95 F-22s so far. Raptors are delivered at a rate of approximately one every six weeks.
(For some reason I had difficulty posting the link, I have U2U'd it to you, feel free to post it.)
I got the link and it turns out the USAF may after all get the 170 F-22's they were finally reduced into accepting.
I'm told there will be a bit of fan fare when the 100th F-22 is officially delivered to the US Air Force later this year.
I don't doubt they will use every and all opportunities to spend taxpayer funds on pointless celebrations. That being said 100 aircraft may be some
achievement when looking at where the program started ( 700-800) and where programs such as the F-117 ended up ( less than 60) and how many millions
can a party cost any ways.
That may not be such a bad thing. It's not like the enemy felt the need to directly take us up on our design capabilities anyway.
Not sure what your trying to say here.
Come one now, lets not be facetious, moot point, but still...
Well it's a untested system if a not a untested concept but since i believe the concept were proved as good as useless decades ago the F-22 will have
to stand on it's great but in no way entirely superior flight characteristics.
We seem to be (and have been) doing just fine at that even without any Raptor's or Lightning's.
Sure but should the USAF's effectiveness really be measures against the armed forces of third world nations? Do we not have plenty of examples of the
USAF being put into situations were it managed to fail despite it's overwhelming 'superiority'?
Care to enlighten me about the Flanker? As for the Mig-31, being designed for pure speed is not a problem, look at the Blackbird, it did the
same, only earlier.
The blackbird could not carry any weapons at all while the Mig-31 and Mig-25 can carry multiple long range missiles at mach 2.8 while pulling G's
that would have ripped the Blackbird apart.
What the F-22 does on the other hand is much more revolutionary.
I have looked but i could not find anything that seems nearly revolutionary enough to result in such a massively costly plane.
Actually from what I heard it was more like ten Sherman's, still when you're outnumbered 1,000 to 50,000 it's bit different than say 100 to
500, no? Give me a Tiger and those odds any day over a Sherman.
To give you some idea of the cost a Tiger took 300 000 man hours to produce, consuming the weekly wages of 30 000 Germans in it's construction,
resulting in it costing similar German resource investment as a US B-29 or navy destroyer; they were good but the cost really were extraordinary. The
problem with smaller numbers is that you simply can not be everywhere at once and Sherman's were perfectly good at punishing German infantry for the
absence of armored fire support four Stugs ( which could have been constructed for similar resources as single Tiger tank) could have delivered over a
wider frontage. The F-22 is in my opinion a 'mistake' and i believe the USAF, and American people, would have been better served by cheaper systems
that can absorb the attrition that ever more widely deployed modern air defense and DEW's will start meting out in the very near future.