Do we really need the F-22?

[Col Hogan]

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..?

Not only wrong, but totally wrong....so wrong it had to be pulled out of a rectal data bank...

One AH-64 Apache Helicopter...one F-117...and one F-16 were shot down...another F-16 was damaged by enemy fire...and about 30 primitive UAVs were shot down...

[native]

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..?

Name calling aside, this has been a pretty good discussion, including a bit of substance even from the dawg.

[Chizzang]

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..?

Not only wrong, but totally wrong....so wrong it had to be pulled out of a rectal data bank...

One AH-64 Apache Helicopter...one F-117...and one F-16 were shot down...another F-16 was damaged by enemy fire...and about 30 primitive UAVs were shot down...

Understood,
there were only a few shot down or even damaged in action, but wasn't it fairly well noted that a HUGE percentage of various aircraft were simply not able to be used due to service issues and technical problems..?

was it not well documented that NATO didn't know how to "keep them in the air"


just asking:

[Col Hogan]

Not only wrong, but totally wrong....so wrong it had to be pulled out of a rectal data bank...

One AH-64 Apache Helicopter...one F-117...and one F-16 were shot down...another F-16 was damaged by enemy fire...and about 30 primitive UAVs were shot down...

Understood,
there were only a few shot down or even damaged in action, but wasn't it fairly well noted that a HUGE percentage of various aircraft were simply not able to be used due to service issues and technical problems..?

was it not well documented that NATO didn't know how to "keep them in the air"


just asking:

I know of no technicial issues that kept aircraft from flying...remember, this was 1998-1999 timeframe...we had been through the first Gulf War and had pretty much got a lot of technicial issues worked out...

dawg was not totally off base on the use of "low tech" means to degrade some high tech systems...live and learn...

Politics was the biggest thing holding back certain systems from being used...

[Chizzang]

Understood,
there were only a few shot down or even damaged in action, but wasn't it fairly well noted that a HUGE percentage of various aircraft were simply not able to be used due to service issues and technical problems..?

was it not well documented that NATO didn't know how to "keep them in the air"


just asking:

I know of no technicial issues that kept aircraft from flying...remember, this was 1998-1999 timeframe...we had been through the first Gulf War and had pretty much got a lot of technicial issues worked out...

dawg was not totally off base on the use of "low tech" means to degrade some high tech systems...live and learn...

Politics was the biggest thing holding back certain systems from being used...

1991 was an eye-opener
I guess I'm combining Gulf War data with this

Fair enough - I do remember a great photo of a marine technician in 1991 using a gym sock as a filter on the air-intake on some vehicle...

Sometimes low tech works...

[CitadelGrad]

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..?

I thought my post made it clear that I was specifically addressing his claim of 200 lost aircraft.

[houndawg]

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?

No, just the number.

It's fun to watch Citgrad hurl himself at the cage and fling feces.

[CitadelGrad]

That wasn't your purpose. You just had no idea what you were talking about and decided to fabricate numbers.

[houndawg]

That wasn't your purpose. You just had no idea what you were talking about and decided to fabricate numbers.

You're right, that was just a bonus. Yeah, I added a zero and it was carefully premeditated, with malice aforethought, cry me a river ......my point remains intact: we were fooled by simple, cheap, countermeasures. We never did suppress their anti-aircraft and in fact our planes were forced to operate up around 15,000 feet by the simple act of not turning on the AA radar. News reports of our B-52s causing mass casualties among the KLA were embarrassingly inaccurate and we did in fact only kill 14 tanks and a handful of armored vehicles. The brand new Apache tank buster was next to useless. In fact we didn't do much damage to Milosevic's military at all, we won by knocking out infrastructure targets.

[houndawg]

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..?

Yes, that is what he is saying.


The hate runs deep in that one, and the fact I'm right makes it run even deeper, do not approach the cage too closely.

[Chizzang]

That wasn't your purpose. You just had no idea what you were talking about and decided to fabricate numbers.

You're right, that was just a bonus. Yeah, I added a zero and it was carefully premeditated, with malice aforethought, cry me a river ......my point remains intact: we were fooled by simple, cheap, countermeasures. We never did suppress their anti-aircraft and in fact our planes were forced to operate up around 15,000 feet by the simple act of not turning on the AA radar. News reports of our B-52s causing mass casualties among the KLA were embarrassingly inaccurate and we did in fact only kill 14 tanks and a handful of armored vehicles. The brand new Apache tank buster was next to useless. In fact we didn't do much damage to Milosevic's military at all, we won by knocking out infrastructure targets.

I won't hold you to accurate numbers - mostly because I don't know them and I don't care...
but I'll give anybody on this forum a crisp $20 dollar bill if you can name the the guy who gave America and the world this number and was adamant about standing behind it...

"The war in Iraq will cost $50 billion and last about 6 months"

[CitadelGrad]

The Apache wasn't brand new in 1999. It was in service when I was in the Army (84-91) and it certainly wasn't useless in the Gulf War.

[mrklean]

The money we spent on the F-22 we could have used to upgrade the F-15, F-16 and F-18's. Dayum the Pentagon is still stupid!!!

[Col Hogan]

The money we spent on the F-22 we could have used to upgrade the F-15, F-16 and F-18's. Dayum the Pentagon is still stupid!!!

So, the Army should have upgraded M-48 instead of buying the M1A1...

And should have updated the M-14 instead of buying the M-16....

Got it....

[CitadelGrad]

The money we spent on the F-22 we could have used to upgrade the F-15, F-16 and F-18's. Dayum the Pentagon is still stupid!!!

Exactly what upgrades to those planes would you suggest?

[mrklean]

The money we spent on the F-22 we could have used to upgrade the F-15, F-16 and F-18's. Dayum the Pentagon is still stupid!!!

So, the Army should have upgraded M-48 instead of buying the M1A1...

And should have updated the M-14 instead of buying the M-16....

Got it....

M-48 NO however, M-14 is better than the M-16 any day of the week.

[native]

So, the Army should have upgraded M-48 instead of buying the M1A1...

And should have updated the M-14 instead of buying the M-16....

Got it....

M-48 NO however, M-14 is better than the M-16 any day of the week.

As a competitive marksman, I agree.

For combat soldiers, I am not so sure. Taking everything into consideration, incuding tooth to tail logistics, the M16 has been a fantastic success.

[Col Hogan]

So, the Army should have upgraded M-48 instead of buying the M1A1...

And should have updated the M-14 instead of buying the M-16....

Got it....

M-48 NO however, M-14 is better than the M-16 any day of the week.

So what makes you such an expert on upgrading Air Force planes???

[ASUG8]

The money we spent on the F-22 we could have used to upgrade the F-15, F-16 and F-18's. Dayum the Pentagon is still stupid!!!

This makes sense in a Cuban automotive kind of way.....why not put GPS, a kickin' stereo, spinners, and a new Mitsubishi engine in a '48 Chevy chassis? Sure, the transmission leaks, but it still runs......

Those aircraft are still pretty awesome, but they're aging rapidly - there's only so much you can do to make them stealthy or carry more armament. Check out the Su35 or Su47 to see what we could be up against. The Russians are cash poor and the Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans will be flying these while we try to make do with a duct-taped F16 from 1974. Maybe we could just buy the Eurofighter.

[Col Hogan]

The money we spent on the F-22 we could have used to upgrade the F-15, F-16 and F-18's. Dayum the Pentagon is still stupid!!!

This makes sense in a Cuban automotive kind of way.....why not put GPS, a kickin' stereo, spinners, and a new Mitsubishi engine in a '48 Chevy chassis? Sure, the transmission leaks, but it still runs......

Those aircraft are still pretty awesome, but they're aging rapidly - there's only so much you can do to make them stealthy or carry more armament. Check out the Su35 or Su47 to see what we could be up against. The Russians are cash poor and the Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans will be flying these while we try to make do with a duct-taped F16 from 1974. Maybe we could just buy the Eurofighter.

QFT

[mrklean]

The money we spent on the F-22 we could have used to upgrade the F-15, F-16 and F-18's. Dayum the Pentagon is still stupid!!!

This makes sense in a Cuban automotive kind of way.....why not put GPS, a kickin' stereo, spinners, and a new Mitsubishi engine in a '48 Chevy chassis? Sure, the transmission leaks, but it still runs......

Those aircraft are still pretty awesome, but they're aging rapidly - there's only so much you can do to make them stealthy or carry more armament. Check out the Su35 or Su47 to see what we could be up against. The Russians are cash poor and the Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans will be flying these while we try to make do with a duct-taped F16 from 1974. Maybe we could just buy the Eurofighter.

Like a Former Fighter Pilot told me. The plane is 1/3's of the battle the Pilot is remaining 2/3. The U.S. continues to have the best trained pilots in the world. I dont care how great of a plane you have, you still need good pilots to win battles. But what do I know. I'm just a dumb azz MP................................

[Col Hogan]

This makes sense in a Cuban automotive kind of way.....why not put GPS, a kickin' stereo, spinners, and a new Mitsubishi engine in a '48 Chevy chassis? Sure, the transmission leaks, but it still runs......

Those aircraft are still pretty awesome, but they're aging rapidly - there's only so much you can do to make them stealthy or carry more armament. Check out the Su35 or Su47 to see what we could be up against. The Russians are cash poor and the Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans will be flying these while we try to make do with a duct-taped F16 from 1974. Maybe we could just buy the Eurofighter.

Like a Former Fighter Pilot told me. The plane is 1/3's of the battle the Pilot is remaining 2/3. The U.S. continues to have the best trained pilots in the world. I dont care how great of a plane you have, you still need good pilots to win battles. But what do I know. I'm just a dumb azz MP................................

We agree on this...I want the best pilots to have the best fighter...

[mrklean]

Like a Former Fighter Pilot told me. The plane is 1/3's of the battle the Pilot is remaining 2/3. The U.S. continues to have the best trained pilots in the world. I dont care how great of a plane you have, you still need good pilots to win battles. But what do I know. I'm just a dumb azz MP................................

We agree on this...I want the best pilots to have the best fighter...

Some times you cant have both. Our brave Pilots in our F-15's, F-16's and F-18's are freaking awesome!!!!!

[Col Hogan]

We agree on this...I want the best pilots to have the best fighter...

Some times you cant have both. Our brave Pilots in our F-15's, F-16's and F-18's are freaking awesome!!!!!

So...our tank crews are the best trained in the world...let's can all those expensive M1A1a and bring back the cheaper M-60s....

Sometimes you can't have both...

[ASUG8]

This makes sense in a Cuban automotive kind of way.....why not put GPS, a kickin' stereo, spinners, and a new Mitsubishi engine in a '48 Chevy chassis? Sure, the transmission leaks, but it still runs......

Those aircraft are still pretty awesome, but they're aging rapidly - there's only so much you can do to make them stealthy or carry more armament. Check out the Su35 or Su47 to see what we could be up against. The Russians are cash poor and the Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans will be flying these while we try to make do with a duct-taped F16 from 1974. Maybe we could just buy the Eurofighter.

Like a Former Fighter Pilot told me. The plane is 1/3's of the battle the Pilot is remaining 2/3. The U.S. continues to have the best trained pilots in the world. I dont care how great of a plane you have, you still need good pilots to win battles. But what do I know. I'm just a dumb azz MP................................

Let's step it down a bit - you're a great street driver, but just imagine what you can do with a Murcielego. I think there's a place for a new gen fighter, but the Pentagon has to give a firm order or costs get muy loco. Amortizing tooling costs over 100 fighters vs 500 makes a huge drop in per unit costs.

* Edit: an throw in the fact that we're conceding space to every other country we might as well make it terrestrial space as well.