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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
First of all if any other country has a problem with our DOD budget can mind its own business, they are jsut mad they cant keep up. Its our money and we can do what we want with it. I don't want as many raptors as F-15 I just want 300 or more raptors. And the F-35 is being mass produced the Us military will buy like 1000+ of them, not to mention the rest of the world.




posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pATTONME
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.


- er, I think you'll find I acknowledged my mistake.

However I think commenting and pointing out that RR's spend was a one-off post WW2 also fair and completely accurate.

Anyway this is debate, who said you had to agree?


If you're proven wrong then take it like a man


- As I said you'll see I said I was wrong, in absolute terms.



and don't conjur up some monkey brain # to try to make other people feel as though they're wrong.


- was RR's defence spending exceptional compared to all post WW2 administrations?

Yes. That cannot be refuted.

Sorry if it's so complicated you feel it is "monkey brain #"....the concept surely isn't that difficult for you is it?


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.


- Naaa mate, I sincerely feel for your friends and associates and what I imagine they have to endure if a mere message board provokes such prissy priggish cobblers just because you don't agree with someone.....

.....or because your own ignorance and stupidity gives you such difficulties over the fairly simple concept of 'trend' behaviour and exceptional behaviour. Sympathies.

Still, it's a free board, right?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Sminkey, while I respect your right to your own opinion, please refrain from using hostile words here.


- what hostile words?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Sminkey, while I respect your right to your own opinion, please refrain from using hostile words here.


- Whaaa? What 'hostile words' did I use toward you?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
First of all if any other country has a problem with our DOD budget can mind its own business, they are jsut mad they cant keep up.


- Yeah that's right Westy, people concerned at the growing militarisation in the world are just jealous.
Jayzuss save us.


Its our money and we can do what we want with it.


- Yeah we're well aware of the FU attitude some have across the US when it comes to the rest of the world.....till you need us of course.


I don't want as many raptors as F-15 I just want 300 or more raptors. And the F-35 is being mass produced the Us military will buy like 1000+ of them, not to mention the rest of the world.


- How impressive. The day you find a real use for them I'm sure your fellow tax-payers will be glad.

I bet your 'Pax Americana' visions are really spoiled knowing what the rest of the developed world thinks of your ideas.....whether you even carry the majority of your own people will be interesting this winter.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The F-22 is worth it weight in gold


Coincidentally, at 30,000 lb dry weight, or 437,500 troy ounces, given gold at the current rate of $400 per ounce... you come up with a figure of $175 million dollars. Allow $25 million of that for servicing, spares etc, means that give or take a million or so, the F-22 is indeed "worth it's weight in gold".


...another useless fact from muppet!


anyway.. as you were. I can't contribute much to these aircraft threads but I enjoy reading them!



[edit on 11/8/04 by muppet]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet

...another useless fact from muppet!




- I heard the B2 cost more than it's own weight in gold.....care to do the math and see if that's just another baseless urban legend muppet?



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   

- I heard the B2 cost more than it's own weight in gold.....care to do the math and see if that's just another baseless urban legend muppet?


Hmm let's see. Going of the dry weight of 190,000 lb, (found on the net), you just convert it to troy ounces and multiply by 400.. you can do it in google, oddly enough.

type convert 190000 pounds to troy ounces into google.

it gives you "190 000 pounds = 2 770 833.33 troy ounces"

multiply by 400 = $1,108,333,200 = $1.1 billion

does that sound about right? What would a B2 cost me? (in black please
)


[edit on 11/8/04 by muppet]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
The B-2 first run cost 2.2 billion each.

I got the dry weight of a B-2 ( 100,000-110,000 lb )

www.danshistory.com...

Its is indeed worth more then gold



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Wow, I wonder how many high-tech schools you could build with the cost of this fleet of superjets.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
It is indeed worth more then gold


Blimey.. me, I'd take the gold.. and make do with a Ferrari.



[edit on 11/8/04 by muppet]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
1,458,333.33 troy ounces x 400


B-2 weight in gold ounces $583,333,200

B-2 cost $2,200,000,000

If my math is correct its worth alot more then gold

[edit on 11-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If my math is correct its worth alot more then gold


The maths looks good, but then you've got depreciation, servicing, insurance.. not to mention the hassle trying to park the damn thing!



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If my math is correct its worth alot more then gold


The maths looks good, but then you've got depreciation, servicing, insurance.. not to mention the hassle trying to park the damn thing!




Im going to see how much GEICO will quote me on a B-2
with a 172 ft wingspan I would not want to parallel park that thing



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
WARNING!!!! Before readin-All little crybabies and tree huggers should be moved away from the computer screen. Parental discretion is advised.


- Yeah that's right Westy, people concerned at the growing militarisation in the world are just jealous. Jayzuss save us.


The rest of the world is only concerned about Americas growing DOD budget and our military equipment. But these same people are not concerned about the build up of other countries. That is hypocrite and it poses me off, causing me to have the FU its my money foreign policy.


-Yeah we're well aware of the FU attitude some have across the US when it comes to the rest of the world.....till you need us of course.


Need you? we helped the Europeans in WWI we helped them in WWII and we have never begged for the help of other countries. The rest of the world by far need to US more than we need you IMO. After all why shouldn't we have the Fu attitude its our country and our budget so why is the rest of the world crying like school girls about it.


-How impressive. The day you find a real use for them I'm sure your fellow tax-payers will be glad.
I bet your 'Pax Americana' visions are really spoiled knowing what the rest of the developed world thinks of your ideas.


Find a use for them? What part of the Eagle is 30+ years old don't you understand, ne fighter coming out by other countries might match the Eagle. In the USAF this is not acceptable air superiority is a must hence we need the Raptor. Oh and let me tell you cow concerned and worried i am of what the French think of us


[edit on 11-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
WARNING!!!! Before readin-All little crybabies and tree huggers should be moved away from the computer screen. Parental discretion is advised.


- Uh oh, Westy is throwing a flag-waving tantrum!


The rest of the world is only concerned about Americas growing DOD budget and our military equipment.


- Not true, the policies you persue are just as great a worry. Particulraly in relation to the environment and your idiotic writting off of the legitimate concerns as "tree hugging".....talk about promote ignorance!


But these same people are not concerned about the build up of other countries. That is hypocrite and it poses me off, causing me to have the FU its my money foreign policy.


- except that no-one elses spending comes remotely close. In putting everyone elses spending against the US's is an interesting sum (especially over the last 20yrs). Care to try it?


Need you? we helped the Europeans in WWI we helped them in WWII and we have never begged for the help of other countries.


- Actually you helped yourselves.....unless you really think you would have prospered in a technically superior (none of those German scientists & no Brit help....and no nuclear scientists) imperial German, German nazi or Soviet communist world? THINK!


The rest of the world by far need to US more than we need you IMO.


- Yes I know that is your opinion Westy. That's what is so wrong.

We all need each other is the truth.


After all why shouldn't we have the Fu attitude its our country and our budget so why is the rest of the world crying like school girls about it.


- Because it is in all of our interest to make a stable world. FFS.

Jayzuusss, you really think this is about macho idiotic name-calling?


Find a use for them? What part of the Eagle is 30+ years old don't you understand, ne fighter coming out by other countries might match the Eagle.


- My point on this has never been that the US should not modernise it's planes....but quit lying Westy, every F15 is not 30yrs old, some are very new.

My point has always been throughout this debate that a 1 for 1 replacement of F22 for F15 was unnecessary and an extravagant waste.


In the USAF this is not acceptable air superiority is a must hence we need the Raptor. Oh and let me tell you cow concerned and worried i am of what the French think of us



- Calm yourself Westy. Your 'air superiority' is not going to disappear.

.....and as for ignoring all contrary comment as 'French', well that is as absurd as it is wrong.

Check out what happened with Bush and his steel plan.....and just how much you guys actually do need (all of) us in olde europe.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

There are fighters coming out in the near future that are DIRECT threats, such as the Mig 1.44 and Su-47.


- Mig 1.42/44 and Su 37/47 Berkut? You cannot be serious.

A serious threat? Since when are either of these properly developed aircraft? Where is the proof of any manufacture even?

The Mig has been suspended for years.

The Su is a paper prototype thought to be being developed from the su37. Everything about the Su known to date says it's likely to be close to FSW F15 with a heavy ram coating and vectoring nozzles. Big deal. It's still basically a gen back and relying on Russian systems, tough stuff but hardly curring edge.

Anyway who could afford them in any numbers? Why should anyone believe they are the better of the current generation never mind the next?

....and how come you are putting this in terms of aircraft/airframes alone when everything about this area now makes it clear that it's the integrated advanced systems are what win.

AWAC supported aircraft etc etc. The idea that it is down to the airframe is really not the full story at all.

As Westy said on another thread, with a budget of over $500million now each of the 5 segments of the US defence forces are spending more than any other whole nations budget.

The idea that there are any credible threats coming from any airforce is simple sales patter from the US industry.

'What if.....' and 'be afraid because this might happen....' are hardly 'evidence'.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

There are fighters coming out in the near future that are DIRECT threats, such as the Mig 1.44 and Su-47.


- Mig 1.42/44 and Su 37/47 Berkut? You cannot be serious.

A serious threat? Since when are either of these properly developed aircraft? Where is the proof of any manufacture even?

As I said, "in the near future." As for a manufacturer, you do know that "Su" stands for Sukhoi and that "Mig" stands for RSK Mig. And yes, they are direct threats. The Mig is even nicknamed "the Raptor killer". You are correct in saying that they re not fully developed, but the Mig has been given 6 billion dollars to develope.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




The Mig has been suspended for years.


See bove link



The Su is a paper prototype thought to be being developed from the su37. Everything about the Su known to date says it's likely to be close to FSW F15 with a heavy ram coating and vectoring nozzles. Big deal. It's still basically a gen back and relying on Russian systems, tough stuff but hardly curring edge.

Paper prototype? This doesn't look like a paper airplane to me...






Anyway who could afford them in any numbers? Why should anyone believe they are the better of the current generation never mind the next?


Russia, China, India ect ect ect would probably want to put these planes into ther airforce. People would believe they are good because the Russians have a history of making very very VERY good aircraft. Dollar for dollar, they make they best planes in the world.



....and how come you are putting this in terms of aircraft/airframes alone when everything about this area now makes it clear that it's the integrated advanced systems are what win.


Because you need numbers. Having a lot of airframes allows you to fight in more areas while still having reserves. Yes, I agree that tech wins now adays, but here is the thing, you still need to match up with the enemies numbers, otherwise the can attack different places and you won't be able to defend them all.



The idea that there are any credible threats coming from any airforce is simple sales patter from the US industry.

Perhaps you didn't see the thread on how Indias airforce beat the USAF in recent wargames. They had the first look and shot, and thus won. That says nothing of Russias air force.



'What if.....' and 'be afraid because this might happen....' are hardly 'evidence'.


The evidence is in the facts - the Eagle is old and needs to be replaced. Besides, there s no reason to become complacent.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I am a tax payer and I am glad it is being spent on these R&D projects for the benefit of the US. I will not apologize for the US having more of something. It takes hard work to get to this point. If other countries want to compete with the US maybe they should stop complainng and start working harder. This technology will eventually get used, and you had better be prepared instead of sorry. War is not a fair boxing match.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As I said, "in the near future." As for a manufacturer, you do know that "Su" stands for Sukhoi and that "Mig" stands for RSK Mig. And yes, they are direct threats. The Mig is even nicknamed "the Raptor killer". You are correct in saying that they re not fully developed, but the Mig has been given 6 billion dollars to develope.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




- um, yeah, as you said elsewhere, wow a whole $6million to continue to develop a next gen fighter.....if that was it's true purpose. Coooo.


The Mig has been suspended for years.


- Yes it certainly was, IMO $6 was probably about sufficient to stop the design team disolving and leaving and maybe had them refine some ideas to attempt export.

I would be stunned (as I think you would be too, seeing you previous comments) if all that were needed to generate large numbers of seriously updated Mig 1.42/44's were a mere $6mil.



Paper prototype? This doesn't look like a paper airplane to me...






- The problem is most pictures like this is that they are of what was originally thought to be called the su 37.....which as I said previously is a FSW equivelent to something F15-ish.

The su 47 is supposedly a further development of this with a far more stealthy shape. This is the paper aeroplane/airframe.

Besides the previous su 37 flying under the new name the 'real' su 47 has not yet flown (according to any available accounts).

That's a paper plane in my book.


Russia, China, India ect ect ect would probably want to put these planes into ther airforce.


- Of course, everyone wants to best they kit they can get. That still doesn't nullify the fact that they are at least one gen behind F22 in most if not all systems.


People would believe they are good because the Russians have a history of making very very VERY good aircraft. Dollar for dollar, they make they best planes in the world.


- In certain respects that has certainly been true at various times, I agree, but not today.


Because you need numbers. Having a lot of airframes allows you to fight in more areas while still having reserves. Yes, I agree that tech wins now adays, but here is the thing, you still need to match up with the enemies numbers, otherwise the can attack different places and you won't be able to defend them all.


- You're not wrong. But I completely disagree with the practical scales we are discussing.

No-one can afford to saturate the current high tech to the point where it loses even with 3rd or 4th gen stuff.

This is why the previous debate about 'need' is so daft.


Perhaps you didn't see the thread on how Indias airforce beat the USAF in recent wargames. They had the first look and shot, and thus won. That says nothing of Russias air force.


- Naa, sales patter. F15's on a tour, out of their regular working environment (ie missing the tactical advantages given by AWAC & JTIDS etc they would have had if it were for real).

.....and, come on, if you really think the Indian AF capable of defeating the USAF anyday of the week I suggest treatment. Serious intensive stuff too.


The evidence is in the facts - the Eagle is old and needs to be replaced. Besides, there s no reason to become complacent.


- But that is just not true.

Some of the eagle fleet is very new (is the line still open? It was a little while ago, I know that). It is still more than capable of performing it's mission. (.....or maybe the manufacturers and their lobbyists lied to the DOD and Congress and the rest of the executive?)

That mission has changes somewhat but nevertheless the eagle is one of the very best fighters available anywhere right now and will be in any realistic foreseeable future.

The issue is not one of complacency it is of what is affordable and desirable.

The USA is currently sucking vast amounts of the worlds wealth in to support it's currency and fund it's vast spending deficit. A deficit which is currently at record levels and accelerating. This is not healthy for the rest of the world and it certainly isn't healthy for the USA - particularly when it coincides with a your enormous long-term trade deficit as it does.

.....and militarists who insist on enormous 'Rolls Royce' projects (everytime, without fail) are a dangerous menace in such a situation IMO.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join