Do we really need the F-22?

[93henfan]

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.

I've never held an M-14, so I can't make a first-hand comparison, but I can vouch for the M16A2 (I believe the Corps has since adopted an even newer version) as a phenomenal service rifle. The original M-16 was certainly problematic for troops in Vietnam, but the later improvements like the forward assist, elimination of ammo-wasting full-auto while adding 3-round burst, more solid barrel, better hand guards, etc. made it a solid, reliable weapon. Plus, it's two thirds the weight of an M-14, seven inches shorter (a real plus in both MOUT and the jungle), and way more of its ammo can be lugged around. Stopping power is less of course, but you get longer effective range. It's also a piece of cake to break down. I haven't touched one in ten years and I would have no problem explaining how to strip one to somebody over the phone.

Am I right, BTK?

[SuperHornet]

93Hen: In general, your description is correct. Most of my career, I used the M-16, but sucked at the range. (There was one time in Okinawa, on the new Marine Corps scoring system requiring 25 or 26 to qualify, I scored equivalent to Dan Marino's number. Of course, there was a "real" Marine who shot a freaking ONE. One has to TRY to shoot that bad....) I carried an M-14 ONCE (while assigned to a ship, which didn't field M-16s) when I accompanied my Chaplain overnight into Africa to visit the Marines we were carrying. It was heavy as heck and made me stick out like a sore thumb (because most of the Marines had 16s).

The M-14 has increased stopping power because of the 7.62 mm round vice the 5.56 round used in the M-16. There was a rumor about Vietnam during the transition where a VC shot across a group of Army guys who couldn't drop the guy with their new 16s after hitting him multiple times. A senior enlisted guy who still had a 14 dropped him with one shot. One DOES have to factor in the weight issue, though in determining which one to prefer. I'll tell you what, though. I was in some battalions that ASSUMED that my T/O weapon was an M-9 merely because I was in the Navy. Given that that isn't the case for RPs until reaching E-6 (not to mention that getting caught in combat with just a 9 mil sucks, especially in a bodyguard role as an RP is), I had to fight to get a 16. The disassembly, cleaning, and reassembly of the 16 was harder than the 9, but there's that little bit of peace of mind through the better protection.

[houndawg]

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.

I've never held an M-14, so I can't make a first-hand comparison, but I can vouch for the M16A2 (I believe the Corps has since adopted an even newer version) as a phenomenal service rifle. The original M-16 was certainly problematic for troops in Vietnam, but the later improvements like the forward assist, elimination of ammo-wasting full-auto while adding 3-round burst, more solid barrel, better hand guards, etc. made it a solid, reliable weapon. Plus, it's two thirds the weight of an M-14, seven inches shorter (a real plus in both MOUT and the jungle), and way more of its ammo can be lugged around. Stopping power is less of course, but you get longer effective range. It's also a piece of cake to break down. I haven't touched one in ten years and I would have no problem explaining how to strip one to somebody over the phone.

Am I right, BTK?

I had the original version which had a rep for jamming. In Basic, my Drill Sgt. (two tours with the big red one in Viet Nam) said that the problems with jamming were caused by the Army initially loading the ammo with surplus gunpowder. Once the right powder came on line the problem stopped. He also said that reports of GIs dropping their M-16s and picking up AKs were BS because that was a good way to get killed by friendly fire. I did see with my own eyes an M16 dug up from three feet of sand, (by some poor bastard who swatted at a mosquito in formation), and fired through a telephone pole. I also shot a few thousand rounds with company rifle teams and never had a jam once.

[native]

...I also shot a few thousand rounds with company rifle teams and never had a jam once.

A testimony, I suspect, of your keeping the weapon in excellent condition.

[AZGrizFan]

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.

That's why I love readin' your stuff, dawg.

[CID1990]

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.

Wow. Just. Wow.

Which B-2 did we lose, dawg?

What little bit of cred you might have ever had just went down the toilet.

200 planes, eh?

[CID1990]

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.

The premise was incorrect to begin with. If it was, then NATO losing 200 aircraft would not be an exaggeration. Your entire post made the argument that low tech defeated high tech.

Not true, and the actual number of planes lost over the old Yugoslavia attests to this. In fact, NATO lost surpisingly few aircraft during those operations; even mishaps were almost non-existent. In that kind of operation, you are going to lose aircraft due to a number of factors, not just enemy action.

[bobbythekidd]

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.

I've never held an M-14, so I can't make a first-hand comparison, but I can vouch for the M16A2 (I believe the Corps has since adopted an even newer version) as a phenomenal service rifle. The original M-16 was certainly problematic for troops in Vietnam, but the later improvements like the forward assist, elimination of ammo-wasting full-auto while adding 3-round burst, more solid barrel, better hand guards, etc. made it a solid, reliable weapon. Plus, it's two thirds the weight of an M-14, seven inches shorter (a real plus in both MOUT and the jungle), and way more of its ammo can be lugged around. Stopping power is less of course, but you get longer effective range. It's also a piece of cake to break down. I haven't touched one in ten years and I would have no problem explaining how to strip one to somebody over the phone.

Am I right, BTK?

Indeed you have pointed out some of the improvements that the USMC made to the M16A1 but you did not list them all (14 total IIRC). The M16A2 does have some advantages over other NATO weapons as far as penetration, riddling, applications in current Theaters of Operations, ease of use and maintainence goes, but it has its limitations as a long range weapon and is negatively affected in adverse conditions. Adverse conditions is code for "combat" so I think we still have room for growth as far as the weapon of choice award goes.

[houndawg]

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.

The premise was incorrect to begin with. If it was, then NATO losing 200 aircraft would not be an exaggeration. Your entire post made the argument that low tech defeated high tech.

Not true, and the actual number of planes lost over the old Yugoslavia attests to this. In fact, NATO lost surpisingly few aircraft during those operations; even mishaps were almost non-existent. In that kind of operation, you are going to lose aircraft due to a number of factors, not just enemy action.

My premise wasn't that low tech defeated high tech, obviously it didn't, my premise was that simple, low-tech, countermeasures can, and did in the case of Kosovo, render high tech weaponry much less efficient. This is why at that time the media was filled with stories about how we were decimating KLA armor and air defenses when the reality was that we were decimating microwave ovens, which emitted just the kind of electromagnetic waves that HARM missiles loved to home in on. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how we managed to take out the Chinese embassy.

Anyway, I'll cop to hyperbole with the numbers and will do it again, if for no other reason than to watch WestPointReject go off.

Your comment that NATO lost surprisingly few aircraft actually bolsters my argument that our ground support wasn't very effective because the fast movers were staying up high due to our inability to suppress their SAMs. Apparently it was a Russian scientist by the name of Valentin Kashinov was the one who consulted with the Serbs about cheap, effective countermeasures like microwave ovens.

[houndawg]

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...

This is something that confuses me, colonel. The planes we have now will do more than the pilot can take, how can we increase performance, other than top end, without going pilotless? If you will have to kill me after telling me, don't answer.

And BTW, I didn't say anything about the marines, they wouldn't take me because my IQ had a third digit, rendering me unfit....

[native]

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...

This is something that confuses me, colonel. The planes we have now will do more than the pilot can take, how can we increase performance, other than top end, without going pilotless? If you will have to kill me after telling me, don't answer.

And BTW, I didn't say anything about the marines, they wouldn't take me because my IQ had a third digit, rendering me unfit....

An Army mech bragging about IQ? Are you taking those hallucinogenics again, dawg?

Don't be confused. There are lots of meaningful aircraft performance parameters other than g-force.

The question is a good one, though. We are already tranistioning to pilotless aircraft.

[CitadelGrad]

Anyway, I'll cop to hyperbole with the numbers and will do it again, if for no other reason than to watch WestPointReject go off.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone? You didn't post just to watch me go off. You posted the bullshit number because that's the sort of thing you do. You are full of shit. You are a liar. You are stupid. It's OK to be stupid as long as you are smart enough to realize that most other people aren't stupid and can readily see through your bullshit. Apparently, you aren't that smart.

As for the "WestPointReject" comment, you have no idea whether I applied to West Point, whether I was nominated or whether I was offered an appointment. You only know that I didn't attend West Point. Anyway, nobody from SIU-C has any business criticizing anyone's choice of school. I would be too generous if I called it third-rate.

[houndawg]

So uncharitable.

[houndawg]

This is something that confuses me, colonel. The planes we have now will do more than the pilot can take, how can we increase performance, other than top end, without going pilotless? If you will have to kill me after telling me, don't answer.

And BTW, I didn't say anything about the marines, they wouldn't take me because my IQ had a third digit, rendering me unfit....

An Army mech bragging about IQ? Are you taking those hallucinogenics again, dawg?

Don't be confused. There are lots of meaningful aircraft performance parameters other than g-force.

The question is a good one, though. We are already tranistioning to pilotless aircraft.

It's not me that's confused, nate. g-force is a pilot parameter, the planes can take more g-force than the pilot can.

[native]

An Army mech bragging about IQ? Are you taking those hallucinogenics again, dawg?

Don't be confused. There are lots of meaningful aircraft performance parameters other than g-force.

The question is a good one, though. We are already tranistioning to pilotless aircraft.

It's not me that's confused, nate. g-force is a pilot parameter, the planes can take more g-force than the pilot can.

G-force is most accurately considered as a group of aviation weapon system parameters. A pilot is one component of the weapon system. No single parameter can justify the retention of an old system or the acquisition of a new system.

[Col Hogan]

An Army mech bragging about IQ? Are you taking those hallucinogenics again, dawg?

Don't be confused. There are lots of meaningful aircraft performance parameters other than g-force.

The question is a good one, though. We are already tranistioning to pilotless aircraft.

It's not me that's confused, nate. g-force is a pilot parameter, the planes can take more g-force than the pilot can.

Did I mention g-force...

[native]

It's not me that's confused, nate. g-force is a pilot parameter, the planes can take more g-force than the pilot can.

Did I mention g-force...

Nice "astronaut" avatar, Colonel.

Do you recall the line from the movie K-19 when one of the Soviet Captains quips something to the effect that Yuri Gagarin was not the first Soviet Astronaut shot into orbit, but the first one "patriotic" enough to hold his breath and survive the experience???

And yes, dawg, there are several g-force considerations (both pilot and hardware) relevant to the decision whether or not to acquire or upgrade an aviation weapon system.

[CID1990]

Aircraft with higher G-tolerances than their pilots is not a new issue. We have been manufacturing planes that can put their crews to sleep for a very long time now.

The P-51 Mustang and the Supermarine Spitfire (both planes used the Rolls Royce Merlin in-line) had higher G ratings than pilots could take.

[CID1990]

Anyway, I'll cop to hyperbole with the numbers and will do it again, if for no other reason than to watch WestPointReject go off.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone? You didn't post just to watch me go off. You posted the bullshit number because that's the sort of thing you do. You are full of ****. You are a liar. You are stupid. It's OK to be stupid as long as you are smart enough to realize that most other people aren't stupid and can readily see through your bullshit. Apparently, you aren't that smart.

As for the "WestPointReject" comment, you have no idea whether I applied to West Point, whether I was nominated or whether I was offered an appointment. You only know that I didn't attend West Point. Anyway, nobody from SIU-C has any business criticizing anyone's choice of school. I would be too generous if I called it third-rate.

Somebody should look up that old post about typical forum assclowns. The one guy who backtracks from a moment of total retardation by claiming that it was actually a carefully calculated attempt to bring someone out fits Dawg to a tee.

[houndawg]

Do you really think you're fooling anyone? You didn't post just to watch me go off. You posted the bullshit number because that's the sort of thing you do. You are full of ****. You are a liar. You are stupid. It's OK to be stupid as long as you are smart enough to realize that most other people aren't stupid and can readily see through your bullshit. Apparently, you aren't that smart.

As for the "WestPointReject" comment, you have no idea whether I applied to West Point, whether I was nominated or whether I was offered an appointment. You only know that I didn't attend West Point. Anyway, nobody from SIU-C has any business criticizing anyone's choice of school. I would be too generous if I called it third-rate.

Somebody should look up that old post about typical forum assclowns. The one guy who backtracks from a moment of total retardation by claiming that it was actually a carefully calculated attempt to bring someone out fits Dawg to a tee.

Now this is rich: a federal government employee expressing his outrage at inflated numbers.

My point remains intact - our gee-whiz technology got punked by microwave ovens.

[native]

... My point remains intact ...

A beach ball makes more points, dawg. The only valid obervations you may have stumbled upon in this thread is through the carity of your readers.

[houndawg]

... My point remains intact ...

A beach ball makes more points, dawg. The only valid obervations you may have stumbled upon in this thread is through the carity of your readers.

That's deep, norman. Carity is a very profound subject.

[houndawg]

Do you really think you're fooling anyone? You didn't post just to watch me go off. You posted the bullshit number because that's the sort of thing you do. You are full of ****. You are a liar. You are stupid. It's OK to be stupid as long as you are smart enough to realize that most other people aren't stupid and can readily see through your bullshit. Apparently, you aren't that smart.

As for the "WestPointReject" comment, you have no idea whether I applied to West Point, whether I was nominated or whether I was offered an appointment. You only know that I didn't attend West Point. Anyway, nobody from SIU-C has any business criticizing anyone's choice of school. I would be too generous if I called it third-rate.

Somebody should look up that old post about typical forum assclowns. The one guy who backtracks from a moment of total retardation by claiming that it was actually a carefully calculated attempt to bring someone out fits Dawg to a tee.

http://www.thepoliticallyincorrectfish.com/pif2/?p=450" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There's some numbers for you, assface. Your buddies over at Stormfront report similar numbers. Time to switch from ad hominem to attacking the source.

Not a very good performance militarily by the good guys.

Only 50 KLA aircraft and 13 tanks destroyed by the mightiest military machine on the planet. What is the military doing with the half-trillion per year budget we taxpayers generously provide.

Looks like we got fought to a standstill by a smarter opponent.

[mrklean]

This is why the Military should have the strictest oversight when it comes to money. IF you let the military have its way they will spend 1000.00 on a freaking toilet seat. Look at what they did in WWII. The Army Air Corps had over 10 different fighter planes and 7 different Bombers. WHY?????? This is a classic example of military irresponsibility. Fast Forward to today. The Military Battle dress uniform or BDU or ACU. Why does each branch have a different pattern??? Another example of Military bull Crap. Pick one damn pattern and stick with it. One of my favorite U.S. President IKE warned us about the Military Industrial Complex. Even he saw it coming.

I cant wait for someone to try to defend Why the Army Air Corps had so many different war planes.

[AZGrizFan]

This is why the Military should have the strictest oversight when it comes to money. IF you let the military have its way they will spend 1000.00 on a freaking toilet seat. Look at what they did in WWII. The Army Air Corps had over 10 different fighter planes and 7 different Bombers. WHY?????? This is a classic example of military irresponsibility. Fast Forward to today. The Military Battle dress uniform or BDU or ACU. Why does each branch have a different pattern??? Another example of Military bull Crap. Pick one damn pattern and stick with it. One of my favorite U.S. President IKE warned us about the Military Industrial Complex. Even he saw it coming.

I cant wait for someone to try to defend Why the Army Air Corps had so many different war planes.

You do realize, don't you that a good percentage of the crap foisted on the military they never wanted in the first place, right? Congressmen suckin' up to their constituents and ensuring the gravy train continues to their district force through programs and equipment that the military doesn't even ASK for many times....