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.

 

I dont like this one bit!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Why not buy more?

I dont like this. In the old days the USAF use to buy more than they needed. Such is not the case anymore, believe me I know.

I just hope our leaders know what theyre doing!




posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
How many more would you like for the U.S. government to spend? Is nearly 30,000,000,000 dollars not enough just to produce the 187?

I would hope thats more then what would be needed. I honestly hope that not one is ever needed to be truthful. Besides, technology is moving in many different directions that maned aircraft probably will be obsolete anyways in the next decade.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
With the planned purchase of large numbers of the F-35 with its dual role capabilities, there is a poor argument for buying large numbers of Raptors.

The F-15 is a great aircraft but was never as useful as the F-16 until they finally introduced the specialized "E" model. I think the comparison between F-22 and F-35 is equally valid.

If buying the F-22 meant fewer F-35s, I would make the same call if I was in their position.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Based on my limited (grunt) experience with "official" numbers and requisitions: I don't really think that 180-something is a real quantity. I think an argument could be made for gross minimalization in this case. Mention was made in the article about "compensation for potential war-related losses". Not to mention any "black" budget items, etc.
All in all, the F35 theory holds water as well, but I would posit that a combination of this and my theory is the more likely scenario.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Why though? The Raptor is faster and carries bombs too. The F-35 is only needed for the Navy. They screwed up by not just making two versions of the Raptor, One for the Air Force and one for the Navy. It is really a waste to use the F-35 for anything else as it was made to replace the A-6 and 7 then later the Harrier witch is a waste of deck space that the Comanche should be taking up. If Congress would buy more Raptors then the price would drop as well as the cost for maintaining the older planes. Not to mention how they are getting wore out do to all the time put on them since 1991.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


They didn't screw up anything, the F-22 was part of a design competition to full fill a role for a certain branch.

The F-35 was designed with a different thought in mind, that's why it's the JSF and will most likely be mediocre at anything it does.

The original 683 Raptors that had been planned at the project's conception may never happen, but 180 is not enough. The number that they had originally developed came out of the Cold War era, they believed a war with the Soviet Union would take place while they had the F-22 so those numbers would be necessary to ensure victory, at least in their minds. I don't think any of them would have known that 2-3 years later the USSR would collapse. The way I see it is the F-22 is the F-15 of the 21st century and the F-35 is the F-16.

Both aircraft will see their legacies develop and mature into different areas.

Shattered OUT...




top topics
 
0

log in

join