Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Your immaturity is showing through in every post. A video game has a goal and it is not to be realistic. Just as the competitions for the stealths had goals which had nothing to do with being the ultimate designs. The X-32 and YF-23 programs lost because they were inferior programs. You can have all the fancy gadgets stuffed into one design and that does not secure the win. It has to be manufactureable, it has to be maintainable, it has to be working, and it has to be affordable. Neither program did well in key criteria and would have failed as programs. Crying about it doesn't alter reality.

So you say gamemaker should not make better flight combat sims to replace the high replayability and fun Jane's Fighters Anthology & USAF? Don't you want a new flight sims that combine Jane's Fighters Anthology gameplay with Jane's USAF realism + Ace Combat's graphics + GTA style scenery, buildings, surroundings and public human AIs?

America having too many ignorants like you end up more companies winding up and losing to China in terms of economy. Thanks to people like you, idiots could climbed up corporate ladder while you still stuck in the bottom.

Fyi, Mc'D had more experience in building practical aircrafts than other manufacturers. The ugly cheap lousy A-4 flown more sorties than LM's crappy F-104 that only know how to crash. The LM's F-104 did score 2 kills over Taiwan but 1 F-104 crashed. Ever wonder why the USAF preferred to fly the F-4 rather than F-104 over Vietnam? Don't try to claim F-16 as Lockheed's credits as it belongs to GENERAL DYNAMICS. The F/A-18 not that agile or handsome but still, the Navy prefers to fly them more because of its ruggedness and toughness. So, you are saying YF-23 and X-32 are lousy just because they try to be practical?

If there are F-23 and F-32 today and US happen to be at war with country X that has proper air force owning 300+ Su-30MK and Su-35BM that are well maintained, you might find the US pilots prefer to fly F-23 and F-32 rather than F-22 and F-35. Main priority is because of practicality and reliability, not style and status. You have new Ferrari and new Ford Fusion but when driving in town in long term, you would stick to reliable Fusion instead of Ferrari because of practicality.

Jay, are you and War one and the same?

Mad, you will never win, there is far too much education of the real world required here!!!

So you say gamemaker should not make better flight combat sims to replace the high replayability and fun Jane's Fighters Anthology & USAF? Don't you want a new flight sims that combine Jane's Fighters Anthology gameplay with Jane's USAF realism + Ace Combat's graphics + GTA style scenery, buildings, surroundings and public human AIs?

America having too many ignorants like you end up more companies winding up and losing to China in terms of economy. Thanks to people like you, idiots could climbed up corporate ladder while you still stuck in the bottom.

Fyi, Mc'D had more experience in building practical aircrafts than other manufacturers. The ugly cheap lousy A-4 flown more sorties than LM's crappy F-104 that only know how to crash. The LM's F-104 did score 2 kills over Taiwan but 1 F-104 crashed. Ever wonder why the USAF preferred to fly the F-4 rather than F-104 over Vietnam? Don't try to claim F-16 as Lockheed's credits as it belongs to GENERAL DYNAMICS. The F/A-18 not that agile or handsome but still, the Navy prefers to fly them more because of its ruggedness and toughness. So, you are saying YF-23 and X-32 are lousy just because they try to be practical?

If there are F-23 and F-32 today and US happen to be at war with country X that has proper air force owning 300+ Su-30MK and Su-35BM that are well maintained, you might find the US pilots prefer to fly F-23 and F-32 rather than F-22 and F-35. Main priority is because of practicality and reliability, not style and status. You have new Ferrari and new Ford Fusion but when driving in town in long term, you would stick to reliable Fusion instead of Ferrari because of practicality.

Do you even know what a TROLL is? For military aircraft forum, if you don't get to decide which aircraft to purchase, get to try out several different fighters from various manufacturers and country of origin, you are nothing much different from being a TROLL. Even if you are a fighter pilot only had experience flying 1 type of aircraft example F-16, he is qualified to be above military enthusiast but still not qualified to judge which F-22/23/32/35 aircraft is better since they don't have proven combat record yet many didn't get to fly them. F-23/32 could not even be judged since they did not have production model in active service.

To prove whether the F-22 and F-35 are feasible fighter, we could only wait for the next big scale war to happen and we'll find out from the war results and bulletin. Don't have to judge by reading specs, articles, hearsay. I'll see how much US would have to spend taxpayers money to maintain the fleet of cut throat overpriced maintenance F-22s and F-35s. Hope they'll phase out all F-15/16/18 in 1 short in massive replacement with F-22s and F-35s. Hope the enemy is not another poorly equipped military like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran. Fighting these poor countries, the F-22/35 that outnumbered their fighters could easily bully and shoot down the inferior Mig-23/29. Even if Syria has a dozen Su-30MK, the US would send few dozens more outnumbering their Flankers. Just like in Serbia, 1 US F-15 would launch 2 AMRAAMs at a single Mig-29 minimum.

SpudmanWP,

Do you even know what a TROLL is? For military aircraft forum, if you don't get to decide which aircraft to purchase, get to try out several different fighters from various manufacturers and country of origin, you are nothing much different from being a TROLL. Even if you are a fighter pilot only had experience flying 1 type of aircraft example F-16, he is qualified to be above military enthusiast but still not qualified to judge which F-22/23/32/35 aircraft is better since they don't have proven combat record yet many didn't get to fly them. F-23/32 could not even be judged since they did not have production model in active service. The rest of you enthusiasts that have not flown any "PROPER" fighter is nothing much different from TROLL neither if you wanted to call those who doubted F-22/35 are TROLLs.

To prove whether the F-22 and F-35 are feasible fighter, we could only wait for the next big scale war to happen and we'll find out from the war results and bulletin. Don't have to judge by reading specs, articles, hearsay. I'll see how much US would have to spend taxpayers money to maintain the fleet of cut throat overpriced maintenance F-22s and F-35s. Hope they'll phase out all F-15/16/18 in 1 short in massive replacement with F-22s and F-35s. Hope the enemy is not another poorly equipped military like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran. Fighting these poor countries, the F-22/35 that outnumbered their fighters could easily bully and shoot down the inferior Mig-23/29. Even if Syria has a dozen Su-30MK, the US would send few dozens more outnumbering their Flankers. Just like in Serbia, 1 US F-15 would launch 2 AMRAAMs at a single Mig-29 minimum.

Hey Jayraptor, I wouldn't call the A4 Skyhawk an ugly lousy plane.....its neither and many former A4 pilots will kick your **** including a certain former RAN aviator on this forum. Oh yeah, another thing....you have great logic....you stated that the YF 23 and X 35 can't be judged as they are not production models in active service (must less seen active combat) and yet we are to believe you, a military "enthusiast", that these planes are the best thing since sliced bread....no wonder alot of forum members don't take you seriously.