Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Is the F-22 a want or a need for the U.S. Air Force

Oh c'mon. We've burnt so many billion so far, what's a few more, huh?

What's the issue???

No more are being bought...you want to trash the ones we have???

Col Hogan wrote:What's the issue???

No more are being bought...you want to trash the ones we have???

Why did we buy them in the first place??

mrklean wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:What's the issue???

No more are being bought...you want to trash the ones we have???

Why did we buy them in the first place??

To keep pace with the USSR!

What?

Oh, nevermind.

On a serious note, my only gripe with the F-22 is that if the Air Force had diverted the funding for just one F-22 to the Marine Corps, the USMC could bring lodging on every Marine Corps Base up to Air Force standards, thus saving the Air Force an even greater amount in TDY dollars no longer spent on the fancy hotels they put Airmen in while Marines get along just fine in said subpar facilities.

93henfan wrote:
...my only gripe with the F-22 is that if the Air Force had diverted the funding for just one F-22 to the Marine Corps, the USMC could bring lodging on every Marine Corps Base up to Air Force standards, thus saving the Air Force an even greater amount in TDY dollars no longer spent on the fancy hotels they put Airmen in while Marines get along just fine in said subpar facilities.

I always noticed that Air Force enlisted barracks were nicer than Marine Corps officer quarters.

Air Force aircraft carriers are comfortable, too:

We probably wouldn't be having this conversation if the purple force freaks hadn't forced the JSF through....

mrklean wrote:Is the F-22 a want or a need for the U.S. Air Force

It's a need. It was canned because it was a whole generation ahead of everyone else and it would take years for them to catch up. Sounded solid, until some new intelligence came out. I wish I could find the article, but either China or Russia is working on the same gen fighter. Couple that with the fact the Joint Strike Fighter is behind schedule and we could very well be on the same playing ground soon.

Although I have the utmost belief in our air superiority even if our adversaries develop a new fighter, it sure will close the gap we count on to stomp ass.

SeattleGriz wrote:

mrklean wrote:Is the F-22 a want or a need for the U.S. Air Force

It's a need. It was canned because it was a whole generation ahead of everyone else and it would take years for them to catch up. Sounded solid, until some new intelligence came out. I wish I could find the article, but either China or Russia is working on the same gen fighter. Couple that with the fact the Joint Strike Fighter is behind schedule and we could very well be on the same playing ground soon.

Although I have the utmost belief in our air superiority even if our adversaries develop a new fighter, it sure will close the gap we count on to stomp ass.

The Chinese openly boast that they have stolen F-22 technology:

http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/archi ... -9190.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess the answer depends on how you think future wars will be fought - conventional like we saw in WWI/II/Korea or something more urban like we're seeing currently. No question air superiority and shock and awe can seriously hamper an opponent's willingness to fight epecially in the early stages of an engagement. The F117s were especially effective in GWI/II in disabling communications and other hard targets.

I'd say we do need the F22 and arguably the F35 JSF for just that reason. That and we'd be relying on the F15/F16 which are aging and do not keep up with the technology the Russians are providing to the rest of the world. We really don't want Iran to be able to claim air superiority, do we?

The F-22 is a want, not a need, because the high ground will be controlled from space.

Subs, however, are a vital need.

houndawg wrote:The F-22 is a want, not a need, because the high ground will be controlled from space.

Subs, however, are a vital need.

Both the US and China have demonstrated the ability to take out satellites in the last couple of years. If our GPS network is disabled we're dead in the water.

Russia is working on a 5th Generation fighter, said to be ready for production in 2015...

I'd guess that means we'll see them in 2018 - 2020...

No, dawg, the high ground will not be controlled from space...we can't put up enough vehicles to do that...we're barely supporting things like GPS and having to rent tons of commercial space for other missions...

Hell, right now with the Obama Administration cancelling some NASA programms, the unintended impact is to reduce even further the number and size of launch vehicles available to the USAF...to save money, the AIr Force partnered with NASA on launch vehicle development and procurement...

And regarding the Marines...

You signed up to live in the mud...why all the whineing....you want cheese with that...

I'll be the first to agree the cost of the F-22 sky-rocketed...partly due to the gee-whiz factor, and part because politicians wanted their piece of the pie, which added to costs...

But the plane will do things that would water your eyes...they're just classified, so it will take some time before they can be revealed...

So, the question is...do you want the best in the world...or not...

houndawg wrote:The F-22 is a want, not a need, because the high ground will be controlled from space.

Subs, however, are a vital need.

Field Marshall Houndawg has spoken.

Col Hogan wrote: And regarding the Marines...

You signed up to live in the mud...why all the whineing....you want cheese with that...

Oh, we're not the ones doing the whining. You should see the faggoty-assed airmen crying the blues at the lodging desk trying to get their waiver stamp. Seen it way too many times. Oddly, the female airmen seem not to mind staying in Marine lodging.

I don't give any credence to these reports of the Soviets having a so-called 5th-Generation fighter. They can't even maintain what they already have. Getting something new would only exacerbate the problem.

I'm more worried about the bloody PRC.

SuperHornet wrote:I don't give any credence to these reports of the Soviets having a so-called 5th-Generation fighter. They can't even maintain what they already have. Getting something new would only exacerbate the problem.

I'm more worried about the bloody PRC.

Yup!

Soon, if not already, they will be able to build our own weaponry better and cheaper than we can!

CitadelGrad wrote:

houndawg wrote:The F-22 is a want, not a need, because the high ground will be controlled from space.

Subs, however, are a vital need.

Field Marshall Houndawg has spoken.

Just carry the luggage, son.

ASUG8 wrote:

houndawg wrote:The F-22 is a want, not a need, because the high ground will be controlled from space.

Subs, however, are a vital need.

Both the US and China have demonstrated the ability to take out satellites in the last couple of years. If our GPS network is disabled we're dead in the water.

...and the first shot in a war with the PRC will be a very large EMP.

ASUG8 wrote:I guess the answer depends on how you think future wars will be fought - conventional like we saw in WWI/II/Korea or something more urban like we're seeing currently. No question air superiority and shock and awe can seriously hamper an opponent's willingness to fight epecially in the early stages of an engagement. The F117s were especially effective in GWI/II in disabling communications and other hard targets.

I'd say we do need the F22 and arguably the F35 JSF for just that reason. That and we'd be relying on the F15/F16 which are aging and do not keep up with the technology the Russians are providing to the rest of the world. We really don't want Iran to be able to claim air superiority, do we?

The problem is that gee-whiz technology is often easily fooled by low-tech, inexpensive countermeasures. We were punked with some authority in Kosovo by such - if you recall the early reports of us decimating Milosevic's air and armor which turned out not to be true at all as both survived the conflict largely unscathed. Our multi-millions-per-copy Apaches took out a grand total of about 15 tanks and spent most of their time on the ground because of the threat of Serbian SAMs. C-130 gunships were considered too vulnerable to be deployed. Our B-52s bombed the bejeezus out of empty hills because they were fooled by decoy heat emitters. Fires made of wet hay and tires emit dense smoke that reflects the lasers guiding ordnance, etc.........upshot was that NATO lost about 200 aircraft of various kinds, including B-2, F-117 and F-16s to an inferior opponent.

200 aircraft lost? I've always known you weren't very bright. Now I know you're an idiot and a liar.

houndawg wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I guess the answer depends on how you think future wars will be fought - conventional like we saw in WWI/II/Korea or something more urban like we're seeing currently. No question air superiority and shock and awe can seriously hamper an opponent's willingness to fight epecially in the early stages of an engagement. The F117s were especially effective in GWI/II in disabling communications and other hard targets.

I'd say we do need the F22 and arguably the F35 JSF for just that reason. That and we'd be relying on the F15/F16 which are aging and do not keep up with the technology the Russians are providing to the rest of the world. We really don't want Iran to be able to claim air superiority, do we?

The problem is that gee-whiz technology is often easily fooled by low-tech, inexpensive countermeasures. We were punked with some authority in Kosovo by such - if you recall the early reports of us decimating Milosevic's air and armor which turned out not to be true at all as both survived the conflict largely unscathed. Our multi-millions-per-copy Apaches took out a grand total of about 15 tanks and spent most of their time on the ground because of the threat of Serbian SAMs. C-130 gunships were considered too vulnerable to be deployed. Our B-52s bombed the bejeezus out of empty hills because they were fooled by decoy heat emitters. Fires made of wet hay and tires emit dense smoke that reflects the lasers guiding ordnance, etc.........upshot was that NATO lost about 200 aircraft of various kinds, including B-2, F-117 and F-16s to an inferior opponent.

You just pull that entire story out of your ass?

CitadelGrad wrote:200 aircraft lost? I've always known you weren't very bright. Now I know you're an idiot and a liar.

Shhhh! Houndawg is really on our side. Don't you know he is a conservative plant, with orders to act like a buffoon, in order to discredit the social demokrat cause?

CitadelGrad wrote:200 aircraft lost? I've always known you weren't very bright. Now I know you're an idiot and a liar.

name calling and so forth with no explanation..?
I don't know the numbers
but everything in his post explaining why our fancy stuff didn't work is very well documented - in fact - is considered pretty much common knowledge

So by your name calling you're saying the numbers are wrong, not the core information right..?

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:200 aircraft lost? I've always known you weren't very bright. Now I know you're an idiot and a liar.

name calling and so forth with no explanation..?
I don't know the numbers
but everything in his post explaining why our fancy stuff didn't work is very well documented - in fact - is considered pretty much common knowledge

So by your name calling you're saying the numbers are wrong, not the core information right..?

He (houndawg) had me right up to the "200" remark.