PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - The F-22: the Republican stimulus plan

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)

- - The F-22: the Republican stimulus plan (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/257507-f-22-republican-stimulus-plan.html)

As far as the F-22 being superior, it needs to be. The Russians and Chineses will probably have a numerical advantage. I would think our pilots would be better trianed, but I wouldn't take that as a given. In the article, they did refer to the Zero. The Zero did have a lot of advantages, climb rate, service ceiling, range. The most overlooked is numbers. Usually 5 to 1 advantage. It actually was slower than the P-40 Warhawk and possibly the Wildcat. Thier pilots were more experienced at the start of the war.
So with China having a billion people, we would be looking at a quality vs quantity. Sort of like what the Germans did in WW2.
Now as far as Vietman, I think Kennedy got us into that one. It is refered to as Johnsons' war. And I think Nixon ended it.
Tom

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 2255452)

I've read over and over that we spend as much on our military as the next 18 or so nations combined. We are so far out in front in quantity and our quality ain't bad best I can tell.

If we plan and prepare overmuch for war it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That sounds about right on the spending, I would add that many of
the top nations, for military spending, are also our allies.

For conservatives you can never spend enough on the military. The answer
is always more spending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 75Sv1 (Post 2255581)

And I think Nixon ended it.

Nixon deserves much more credit than he gets. Made a few big PR mistakes and that ended his term. I think a lot of people are beginning to realize he wasn't THAT bad...

Re: Previous posts...Dodd is horrible. So is Lieberman, never liked either of them. Great senators we've got here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monomer (Post 2255491)

other countries are buying the f22's basted stepchild off us, the F-35 :rolleyes:

There are two main reasons for this

1) Numerous other countries are partnering in the development of the F35 for the right to be able to purchase them or win production contracts for them.

2) The US has passed a law that prevents the F22 from being sold to any other nation. Other nations want to buy it but the US will not allow it.

The F22 is expected to be a better air superiority fighter than the F35, which is probably why the US doesn't want anyone else to have it. Relatively small numbers of this aircraft can enter any present air combat theatre and quickly establish air superiority over significantly larger numbers of 4th gen fighters. Wikipedia's F22 entry notes that in an exercise in Alaska in June 2006, a dozen F22s were able to successfully kill 108 adversary aircraft with 0 losses. The opposing airframes were F15/F16. It is expected to hold an advantage over the F35 if it met it in combat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll (Post 2255498)

The problem is you can see it perfectly well.

Prior to the F22 all stealth aircraft had been bombers. Intended to attempt to avoid enemy radar and visual, by flying special vectors at night. This severely constrained their maneuvering ability and they could never be effectively used in any role but a night bombing one.

The F22 is supposedly a 24 hour air superiority fighter. This means that it has to be able to dogfight during broad daylight. Thus it's stealth carachteristics, assuming they are all they are cracked up to be - are less relevant than those of it's predecessors. And as I've explained it's show pleasing tricks of almost standing still in the air make it a sitting duck for any third world AAA gunner.

Incorrect. The Israelis found out just how effective it can be in the various wars they fought against the Arabs. The British navy used it quite effectively against the Argentine airforce in the Falklands. And while I might be wrong about this I think that one F117 was lost in combat and it was hit by sprayed AAA, not missiles.

You don't need the latest and greatest. A WWII vintage 20mm would be just fine from what I saw a that display. No different than shooting down a helicopter. Remember Somalia?

- Peter.

Wasn't that F117 lost in the Balkans in 1999? And I believe it was downed by an antique 1960's vintage Soviet SAM-3 battery.:rolleyes:

At least in the 1967 war, the Israelis dealt with the enemy air forces by landing the first punch, wiiping out 300 planes in a first strike. They had, and Hattie makes the point, air superiority from the get go and they won the war. Control the sky, you control the ground below.

Steath, smealth. When all else fails, fire up old reliable. The greatest military aircraft ever. Bar none. Still haulin' the mail...after 50 years.;)

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t...ow97/PlanR.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002 (Post 2255623)

Ike was exactly right. And nototious peace-nik John McCain expanded on the concept by referring to it as the military-industrial-congressional complex.

Other armies have more soldiers than us but we've been spending so much more on hardware for so long, I don't look to see any of them coming close to us in that capacity for some time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynalow (Post 2255722)

The B-52 is a cool looking plane. I used to scramble all over the insides of a few of them when I grew up in Roswell, NM, about 10 miles from the now defunct Walker Air Force Base. I must have gone to 3 or 4 of the open house days over the years.

I read of one mechanic who said the only time he worried about them was when there wasn't pools of oil beneath the engines as that meant they were out of oil.