do we need the F-22?

snoogit said:
the F-22 is probably the last jet of its kind though from everything i've heard. But its already been said, this things probably been in development longer then most of us have been alive.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's likely as well. The only way to go in today's kinder, gentler, no casualty military is unmanned drones.

Judgement Day is coming. :omy:
 
I got to see the engine of the F-22 soon after the contract was awarded. I was working for Parker who supplied some of the hoses that went on the engine. Pratt & Whitney had a trailer come through with the engine in it and a video of the jet and why they won the contract.

It looked pretty badass.
 
wonko80 said:
I got to see the engine of the F-22 soon after the contract was awarded. I was working for Parker who supplied some of the hoses that went on the engine. Pratt & Whitney had a trailer come through with the engine in it and a video of the jet and why they won the contract.

It looked pretty badass.
Click to expand...

Damn youre e-cool.
 
snoogit said:
the F-22 is probably the last jet of its kind though from everything i've heard. But its already been said, this things probably been in development longer then most of us have been alive.
Click to expand...

They dedcided they needed it in 1981. They picked which two models they wanted in 1986 (the year I was born lol). The first test flight was in 1991. First production type was shown in 1997. The AF only decided they were actually gonna really go through with buying it in 2003.
 
didn't the per plane cost triple in the last 8 years or so? as the govt keeps scaling back the order the contractor just keeps jacking up the per plane cost to cover it, iirc
 
w_a_w said:
didn't the per plane cost triple in the last 8 years or so? as the govt keeps scaling back the order the contractor just keeps jacking up the per plane cost to cover it, iirc
Click to expand...
IIRC The government wanted ~700 planes, then changed it to 400, then went back to 600, then changed it 183. Shockingly the less you order, the more it costs to build.
 
FlamingGlory said:
IIRC The government wanted ~700 planes, then changed it to 400, then went back to 600, then changed it 183. Shockingly the less you order, the more it costs to build.
Click to expand...

there's a point in there somewhere where you are just giving away planes though :p
 
I'm just assuming that you have all known the best game but haven't mentioned it yet.

Top_Gun_2_thumb_cart.jpg

Top_Gun_NES_ScreenShot2.jpg
 
shawndavid said:
Russia has a thrust vector stealth jet (Google it FG!) that is more maneuverable than ours. The 22 is replacing more than just our 15s and 16s et al, it's replacing the 117 as well. It hits targets that don't even know it's there. Did you guys see the staggering kill ratios this thing has? It was like 10:1 on a 15. That's some shit.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the Mig-29 is actually more manueverable than the F-22.
 
GreatTiger said:
Even better; how about not fighting at all?
Click to expand...

Shiny happy people laughing
Meet me in the crowd
People people
Throw your love around
Love me love me
Take it into town
Happy happy
Put it in the ground
Where the flowers grow
Gold and silver shine

Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing

Everyone around love them, love them
Put it in your hands
Take it take it
There's no time to cry
Happy happy
Put it in your heart
Where tomorrow shines
Gold and silver shine

Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
 
KNYTE said:
I don't think that the Mig-29 is actually more manueverable than the F-22.
Click to expand...

SU-27s (flanker) and 35s (flanker E) have "thrust vectoring" as well (this isnt from google, it's from Jane's which I may add is much better for military equipment). 27s are comparable to F-15s though and the only real combat data is from the Etheopia-Eritreian war, and 35s (of which there are only 11) have never been tested in combat.

If we get in a war with Mexico we might get some 27 action. Of course none of these planes have the stealth technology we do. They will be large blinking dots whereas the 22s might never be seen.
 
FlamingGlory said:
SU-27s (flanker) and 35s (flanker E) have "thrust vectoring" as well (this isnt from google, it's from Jane's which I may add is much better for military equipment). 27s are comparable to F-15s though and the only real combat data is from the Etheopia-Eritreian war, and 35s (of which there are only 11) have never been tested in combat.

If we get in a war with Mexico we might get some 27 action. Of course none of these planes have the stealth technology we do. They will be large blinking dots whereas the 22s might never be seen.
Click to expand...

One would think that they could come up with a type of radar that could sense a 'hole' in the sky, but then again I don't read the AWACS owner's manual either...
 
fly said:
One would think that they could come up with a type of radar that could sense a 'hole' in the sky, but then again I don't read the AWACS owner's manual either...
Click to expand...

the whole point of stealth is that it absorbs radar rather than deflecting it...it doesn't leave a hole to detect
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back