Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 89

Thread: The F-22, in combat?

  1. #31
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kc135cc View Post
    Simulated war games? I'm sure the F-22 can win in a controlled test environment. "Real" Combat and "Real" air defenses are a different ball game all together. I have no doubt it's an incredible machine but its not the be all end all aircraft out there. What use is an aircraft in a combat zone when you have to fear if the pilot is going to be conscious long enough to complete the mission? You defend this aircraft, why don't you try and side with the aviator that has to strap this thing on and realize there is a huge unknown safety problem with this aircraft.

    why do war games not count? isn't it often that the US puts itself or specific platforms at a distinct disadvantage?? isn't the F-22 still basically untouched (i think one kill that had questionable situation surrounding it?)0

    You knock the oxygen situation with the F-22, which is a fair, but you ignore that those same whistle blowers said it is the best plane on the planet? these are guys that flew F-15's and F-16's (not sure which or if it was both)

  2. #32
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Goddamnit avatar GROWWWW!
    Posts
    16,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kc135cc View Post
    Simulated war games? I'm sure the F-22 can win in a controlled test environment. "Real" Combat and "Real" air defenses are a different ball game all together.
    Yes, yes. We heard the same bull$hit about the F-16, F-15, Abrams, Bradley, Apache, etc. etc. All the armchair experts telling us that we should stick with the F-4, Cobra, etc. because all these new-fangled, gold-plated, money pits were worthless and "exercises don't mean anything". Pull your head out.

  3. #33
    Loadmaster General Laworkerbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California Über Alles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    39,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Sorry to burst your bubble but the Eagle has been around a lot longer than you've been paying attention.
    I'm well aware of the complaints about the F15, I grew up during the Cold War you muppet.

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Yes, yes. We heard the same bull$hit about the F-16, F-15, Abrams, Bradley, Apache, etc. etc. All the armchair experts telling us that we should stick with the F-4, Cobra, etc. because all these new-fangled, gold-plated, money pits were worthless and "exercises don't mean anything". Pull your head out.
    You're wrong on that list with the exception of the Bradley - You just can't see the forest from the tree's.

  4. #34
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    728

    Default

    Apache had a lot of detractors and was deemed a widow maker.

    Osprey is another one that you can add to your list, puffs

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,642

    Default

    F-18 pilots sure don't want to go up against it. They give it some respect. (mostly likely because it has a tailhook)


    When asked what they would prefer to be sitting in, on a day one scenario, the F/A-18 pilots willingly admit they would jump in the 22. Rivalry aside the LO is a big plus.

    A dirty F/A-18 with all its dangling stores is 'pretty easy to see coming' stated one of the F/A-18 crew.
    That's scuttlbutt, I'm no pilot.

  6. #36
    Loadmaster General Laworkerbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California Über Alles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    39,980

    Default

    Who wouldn't want to fly a '22? My problem is with the cost of the program and the lack of a sufficient amount of airframes. The entire program is a boondoggle that will not help us in the future.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laworkerbee View Post
    Who wouldn't want to fly a '22? My problem is with the cost of the program and the lack of a sufficient amount of airframes. The entire program is a boondoggle that will not help us in the future.

    "Who wouldn't want to fly a '22?" That's all you had to say....

    The rest is superfluous.

    You have personal beef with finances....we get it.

  8. #38
    Loadmaster General Laworkerbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California Über Alles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    39,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toad View Post
    The rest is superfluous.

    You have personal beef with finances....we get it.
    Finances? Do you think you can fight a general war with only 187 airframes? (Actually call it 160 since all aircraft will not be in service at any given time, plus you have attrition) You don't get it at all.

  9. #39
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Goddamnit avatar GROWWWW!
    Posts
    16,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laworkerbee View Post
    I'm well aware of the complaints about the F15, I grew up during the Cold War you muppet.
    Well you obviously weren't paying much attention if you believe this:


    Quote Originally Posted by Laworkerbee View Post
    You're wrong on that list with the exception of the Bradley - You just can't see the forest from the tree's.
    Nope. The F-16 was "worthless" because it lacked BVR and would be out gunned by the Mig-23 (which had BVR capability). On top of that it acquired the nickname of "Lawn Dart" for it's propensity for crashing. The F-15 was "gold plated" and a waste of money (see "Fighter Mafia"). Apache, "For the next several years, however, the Apache was controversial, primarily because of its complexity and cost, which far exceeded the cost of traditional helicopters due to its complicated systems." Abrams,

    http://books.google.com/books?id=-ugxN7VKWiEC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=abrams+tank+controversial&source=bl&ots=w-gvlpS6iB&sig=N89kbokVOTqxVqVULVD8jRKpkx0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GV-pT4qMB4fjiALDu63gAg&ved=0CF8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=abrams%20tank%20controversial&f=false

    "
    The M1 Abrams entry into army service was troubled and controversial. The liberal mass media denounced the M1 tank as an expensive lemon, based mainly on test reports on the original pilot model XM1s. The M1 became a prime symbol of the Reagan defence build-up of the early 1980s, and an especially obvious target for those opposed to the army modernization effort. Further fuel was given to the critics by start-up problems at the M1 production plants, cost-overruns, and performance shortfalls. Many of the media charges were wildly off-base, and the excellent performance of the M1 Abrams battalions during the Reforger exercises in Germany in September 1982 heightened army enthusiasm for the new tank."



  10. #40
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Goddamnit avatar GROWWWW!
    Posts
    16,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laworkerbee View Post
    Finances? Do you think you can fight a general war with only 187 airframes? You don't get it at all.
    Bitch at the people who ended production then. Just because they only bought 187 doesn't mean it's a $hitty aircraft.

  11. #41
    Loadmaster General Laworkerbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California Über Alles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    39,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Bitch at the people who ended production then. Just because they only bought 187 doesn't mean it's a $hitty aircraft.
    When will you wake up to the FACT that this country can't afford 1,000 F22's? When? The cost of this plane is its own worst enemy, and of our countries finances.

  12. #42
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Goddamnit avatar GROWWWW!
    Posts
    16,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laworkerbee View Post
    When will you wake up to the FACT that this country can't afford 1,000 F22's? When?
    Who the fvck said we needed a thousand?

  13. #43
    Loadmaster General Laworkerbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California Über Alles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    39,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Who the fvck said we needed a thousand?
    Pick a number Slim Shady? How many 15's we have in service right now? Those birds will need to be replaced, they should've been replaced on a one for one basis but now that can't happen because of this gold plated uber weapon. A weapon whose costs should never have risen to such heights, too bad congress and the defence contractors all have their hands in the same cookie jar.

  14. #44
    Senior Member armored_diplomacy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    At the gym, lifting non impressive weights
    Posts
    6,271

    Default

    F-22 has won endless battles at History Channel

  15. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laworkerbee View Post
    Finances? Do you think you can fight a general war with only 187 airframes? (Actually call it 160 since all aircraft will not be in service at any given time, plus you have attrition) You don't get it at all.
    I'm not sure what a general war is.... generally speaking

    160 airframes + bomber fleet + the thousands of legacy A/C. Plus the decoys, drones, cruise missiles, Jstars, p-3 E-3, E-2 and the 'dark' ones we can't even describe all networked together ? .....and that is just the Air Operations?

    Yeaaaahhhh.... I feel pretty confident

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •