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.

 

f-22 vs 5x f-15s = ... ;))))

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
www.dcmilitary.com...

great news.I just love this aircraft.I don't know why so many people thought that f-22 is too expensive and that all the project was wrong.

maybe f-22 is expensive but only such aircraft could protect US air supremacy in any war.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by gattaca]




posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The F-22 is worth it weight in gold and it is needed cuz the Eagle is getting 3O+ years old. Its funny to me some of the people who say its too expensive dont even live in the US so what are they worried about? Its my tax money not theirs they should mind their business I dont mind paying taxes to have a jet like the Raptor. Plus the encounter with 5 F-15, proves it capabilities.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The F-22 will basically be impossible for any nation to surpass for decades to come. No one will be able to duplicate its stealth, and without that it would seem impossible to actually match up to the F-22.

I don't think anything at this moment in even vast numbers could take down a F-22. The only real limitation seems to be how many missiles it can carry...



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The F-22 will basically be impossible for any nation to surpass for decades to come. No one will be able to duplicate its stealth, and without that it would seem impossible to actually match up to the F-22.

I don't think anything at this moment in even vast numbers could take down a F-22. The only real limitation seems to be how many missiles it can carry...


It carries 8. 6 radar 2 heat seakers. all internal. thats impressive.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I'll agree that the Raptor's worth it's weight in gold, but if that's true, than what about Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? Worth it's weight in freakin' platinum. The Air Force and Navy versions cost less than 1/3 of the $100 million it'll cost the DOD to make the F/A-22's. I haven't taken a look at the link yet, but just wanted to put in my two cents.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homyrrh
I'll agree that the Raptor's worth it's weight in gold, but if that's true, than what about Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? Worth it's weight in freakin' platinum. The Air Force and Navy versions cost less than 1/3 of the $100 million it'll cost the DOD to make the F/A-22's. I haven't taken a look at the link yet, but just wanted to put in my two cents.


I figured that cause the link said they cost 150 million apiece.

Platinum? You think the F-35 is better then the F-22? I Strongly Disagree.

But I do like the F-35 and hope it can servive till its production date, but thats a while away, and fighting in Iraq and going to the moon isn't exactly cheap.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
''We had five F-15 Eagles against one Raptor," he said. "The engagement was over in three minutes. None of the F-15s even saw the Raptor. The Raptor simply went down the line and, in simulation, took out all five of the F-15s."


Thats pretty impressive I remember seeing a flight simulator for the F-22 on a show and it would show the size of the enemy radar range. Stealth makes their radar range so much smaller, and to see your enemy first is very important in Air to Air combat.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:41 PM
link   
wait...forgive me, but isn't the US already had air supremacy ever since WW2?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2009
wait...forgive me, but isn't the US already had air supremacy ever since WW2?


Yeah, what's your point?

Fighters like this are how we keep it.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I don't believe the gap between America and the rest of the world has ever been so large as with the F-22. It's doubtful any nation will be able to copy it because of its price for some time. The price can kind of be a benefit here, I guess.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I don't believe the gap between America and the rest of the world has ever been so large as with the F-22. It's doubtful any nation will be able to copy it because of its price for some time. The price can kind of be a benefit here, I guess.


Thats a interesting way to look at the price but you may have a good point. Even if you steal plans to make a plane it don't really help you if you can't afford to make them.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   
The raptor is 10x better than the F-35 that is why it costs more. Plus people have to get it through their heads the F-35 and F/A-22 are designed for different roles! you can't replace one with the other.The F-35 is not an Air superiority fighter its an attack airplane and the Raptor is not meant to be a ground attack but mainly A2A. The raptor would loose some of its stealth but it can carry an additional 8 missiles outside so it can carry a grand total of 14-16 missiles.


[edit on 11-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The F-22 is worth it weight in gold and it is needed cuz the Eagle is getting 3O+ years old. Its funny to me some of the people who say its too expensive dont even live in the US so what are they worried about? Its my tax money not theirs they should mind their business I dont mind paying taxes to have a jet like the Raptor. Plus the encounter with 5 F-15, proves it capabilities.


- So how come you are complaining about how you 'need' a near 1 for 1 replacement of last gen by this gen on other threads on this board?

BTW the reason why folks from outside of the US get worried about your absurdly OTT 'defence' spending is because it is looking more and more likely that 'defence' has nothing to do with it and that a more heavily armed world is by it's very nature a more dangerous place.

.....oh, and what with many of us having US relatives the thought of an American empire and all the troubles that will bring (our own) doesn't thrill us either. It appears your leadership are intent on learning nothing from what went before. That will not be good, for any of us.



[edit on 11-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
BTW the reason why folks from outside of the US get worried about your absurdly OTT 'defence' spending is because it is looking more and more likely that 'defence' has nothing to do with it and that a more heavily armed world is by it's very nature a more dangerous place.


Assuming that OTT is over the top? the amount of spending compared to GNP is actually quite resonable. Also, as I have pointed on several threads, military R&D eventually will trickle down to the civilian sector.

Read my loooong post on defence in the Campaign 2004 Forum. The key to security is to have a strong defence. Peace has never ever been attained by weakness. Why do we spend so much? We feel its necessary to maintain our way of life, protect our oversea interests etc etc.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Assuming that OTT is over the top?


- it is indeed Fred.


the amount of spending compared to GNP is actually quite resonable.


- well correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you are spending more now than you did (in real terms) when there was a Soviet Union and WARPAC to be worrying about. I find that beyond belief.


Also, as I have pointed on several threads, military R&D eventually will trickle down to the civilian sector.


- just so long as there is a civillian sector left? If you spent even a fraction of your 'defense' budget on civil projects you might positively impact on some of your worst social problems and help stop the 'out-sourcing' that is devastating your economy.

Once you get over the genuine defensive 'need' level I just do not believe money spent on 'defense' is a particularly good investment.


Read my loooong post on defence in the Campaign 2004 Forum. The key to security is to have a strong defence. Peace has never ever been attained by weakness. Why do we spend so much? We feel its necessary to maintain our way of life, protect our oversea interests etc etc.



- Yeah no doubt that is so. I think you have been led up the 'garden path' and are spending way in excess of any actual 'need'.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
First I agree with whoever mentioned that they both serve different roles. The F-35 is a strike aircraft, and the F/A-22 is for air-to-air combat.

The only problem with either is mass production. First of all, the government doesn't seem to want to spend enough money as is needed for an aircraft like this.

As for cockpits, both are very pilot-friendly. The joysticks are on the right, and I believe it can be put on the left for left-handed pilots. All missle-control buttons and switches are located on the joystick head so the pilot doesn't have to divert his line of sight to the dash. And speaking of the dash, the F-35 has one that is a giant touch-screen. Basically, it's pick your target and press a button.

THIS is why we've had air superiority for the past 50 years. The same can be said for our ground forces, and since 1991, we've been tops in the Naval dept.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by FredT


the amount of spending compared to GNP is actually quite resonable.


- well correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you are spending more now than you did (in real terms) when there was a Soviet Union and WARPAC to be worrying about. I find that beyond belief.


You are wrong. At the peak of the cold war in the 80's under RR, the US had a defense budget of over 1 TRILLION dollars. It is much lower then that now, I believe in the 700 Billion range. And that does NOT factor in inflation.

The reason why all of us pro millitary guys want a 1 for 1 replacement of the F-15 with the Raptor is to keep the dominance we have spent so much money and effort to attain. If the AF got the 700 Raptors they were looking for, the plane would also cost MUCH less. In fact, if this many were purchased, the price of updating the F-15's (the idea floated around by Raptor detractors) would be over 90% of simpy replacing the Eagles with Raptors. In the long run, this would actually SAVE tax dollars, because the Raptor is projected to remain superior to anything else coming out for over 20 years, straight from the factory, while the Eagle would need several upgrades in the same period of time, while also being an inferior aircraft.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
You are wrong. At the peak of the cold war in the 80's under RR, the US had a defense budget of over 1 TRILLION dollars. It is much lower then that now, I believe in the 700 Billion range. And that does NOT factor in inflation.


- Yeah OK if you take everything and compare it to the absurdities of RR's bloated extravagances then it's true I was wrong.

On the other hand if instead of comparing the spectacularly above trend spending growth 'spike' he allowed and go back to 'post WW2 trend' spending it is higher than ever.


The reason why all of us pro millitary guys want a 1 for 1 replacement of the F-15 with the Raptor is to keep the dominance we have spent so much money and effort to attain.


- No. This is plainly false. If Raptor is better at a ratio of around 5 - 1 then this is an extension of capability well beyoned "keeping dominance".

It's othing more than a desire to posture because you think it makes you safer.

So why not 2000 then?


If the AF got the 700 Raptors they were looking for, the plane would also cost MUCH less. In fact, if this many were purchased, the price of updating the F-15's (the idea floated around by Raptor detractors) would be over 90% of simpy replacing the Eagles with Raptors. In the long run, this would actually SAVE tax dollars, because the Raptor is projected to remain superior to anything else coming out for over 20 years, straight from the factory, while the Eagle would need several upgrades in the same period of time, while also being an inferior aircraft.


- Yeah right. The Macawber arguement. Even though you have spent several fortunes in one way you have saved. Hey why not buy 4000?

Ripping the micky out of the US tax payer, nothing less, draped in a national flag and a ton of 'patriotic' bombastic jabber while you do it. Sad.

Way to go.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Sminky, how come whenever you are proven wrong about something you have to come up with some bull# to make your self seem right again. If you're proven wrong then take it like a man and don't conjur up some monkey brain # to try to make other people feel as though they're wrong.

And if you think everything you said is the truth then I sincerely feel for you and anyone that knows you because you'll only spread your stupidity and ignorance.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Sminkey, while I respect your right to your own opinion, please refrain from using hostile words here. It is not needed. I am simply telling you FACTS.

As for your assumption that since the Raptor holds such an advantage over todays aircraft, fewer are needed, I would say you are wrong. While it is true that fewer Raptors would be needed to keep dominance today, in order to insure that the US keeps this advantage it has enjoyed more or less since WWII, the airforce mut be modernized. You see, the world mves forward. There for, though the Raptor may be able to take on 3-8 of todays modern fighters, it will not enjoy such an advantage in the future. There are fighters coming out in the near future that are DIRECT threats, such as the Mig 1.44 and Su-47.

Thus, to keep our "high ground" advantage, we must be able to match every potential enemies aircraft with an equal or better (in the case with the Russian aircraft the Raptor would most likely be slightly better) aircraft of our own.

As for your argument of "well why don't we just buy thousands of them then? they will be cheaper that way", I'm preatty sure the USAF would be jumping with joy, but the fact is that it was decided that only 700 were needed to insure dominance into the forseable future.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join