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.
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...
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.
Originally posted by 2009
wait...forgive me, but isn't the US already had air supremacy ever since WW2?
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.
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 don�t even live in the US so what are they worried about? Its my tax money not theirs they should mind their business I don�t mind paying taxes to have a jet like the Raptor. Plus the encounter with 5 F-15, proves it capabilities.
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.
Originally posted by FredT
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.
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.
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.
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.