F-16.net

Quote:

My entire comment stimmed from your implication that MY country should for all practiacal purpose base it's spending on what keeps YOUR safety, economy and welfare systems in place and that is an insult to me and my family.

and i have already answered to this by saying

Quote:

that was a sarcastic answer to a very stupid, stupid, stupid (and vile) question, made to cut me out of the discussion as it is "US only" concern/topic/thread

I have no need anyone to tell me US act on US interests first and foremost, and that welfare stuff, again, forget about it: it is not relevant. Sorry if you felt insulted, i am not sure you felt anyhow sorry for me when i was insulted when i have been told to shut up because this was not my concern -as if this wasnt a public forum (mantained by Europeans!)
If this is clear, we can go on. And for your own concern, I *DO* care (not only "have use") of US, as several of my countryfellas do. And not because you "pay my bills". Anyway this is not of any interest for the topic of this thread.

F-16.net Sponsor

Maffa wrote:

Quote:

My entire comment stimmed from your implication that MY country should for all practiacal purpose base it's spending on what keeps YOUR safety, economy and welfare systems in place and that is an insult to me and my family.

and i have already answered to this by saying

Quote:

that was a sarcastic answer to a very stupid, stupid, stupid (and vile) question, made to cut me out of the discussion as it is "US only" concern/topic/thread

I have no need anyone to tell me US act on US interests first and foremost, and that welfare stuff, again, forget about it: it is not relevant. Sorry if you felt insulted, i am not sure you felt anyhow sorry for me when i was insulted when i have been told to shut up because this was not my concern -as if this wasnt a public forum (mantained by Europeans!)
If this is clear, we can go on. And for your own concern, I *DO* care (not only "have use") of US, as several of my countryfellas do. And not because you "pay my bills". Anyway this is not of any interest for the topic of this thread.

Maffa,
Ok we can end all what was goin on and should. I have been on many many forums over the years, and I mostly like to read, but this is without a doubt the most professionally maintained of any I have seen, Bar none. My comments were most likely the most *direct* personal ones I have seen and hopefully the admin doesnt bar me as I enjoy the Hell out of readin here.

I have yet to see anyone on here tell anohter to shut up. I honesatly sit and ask myslef time and time again why some of the more knowledgeable ones on here continue time and time again telling some on here the reasons for this and that when its clear the person has NO interest in facts, as they almost ALWAYS give on here. But yet they do and do it in a professiaonl manner.

Anyhow you can get back to asking about the F22 with those guys now as they are the ones with the specs. I simply beleive America is second to none and don't need to be convinced is all Wink

))

Take Care,

Beazz

Beazz, I'm not saying you are a teenager, more less trying to patronize you. I just point out that the USA is a logical country that has some goals and tries to meet them. Some of these goals include being secure, and the "bases abroad" is just another part of it, isn't it ? Isn't NATO the reason why the western world has stayed out of the claws of so many people ? While I have nothing to say on how the US money is spent (although I personally believe the F-22 is worth every penny of it), the benefits of co-operation of Europe and the US the last 60 years has been beneficial to all parties involved. There's no thing as a "european country who lives off US taxpayers money", as Maffa wants to imply, Plus european soldiers are dieing every day in our common war to stop lunatics as well.

The bottom line of the global book is: USA wants and needs to be in Europe/Asia/you pick it because it benefits you and the country that hosts the forward base. The point of being here is so you spend less dollars (via foreign sales of defense equipment that you know they won't turn against you), and your sons will have my sons fighting alongside them - a better and stronger punch. Again, consider this not as trying to patronize, but instead as a view of a european friend on the alliance and presence of your people here.

My final point is that we do not add anything to the topic, these strategies were planned 60 years ago, and remain effective today as well, and we all still benefit from it. I just believe the A vs. E argument isn't fitting in this context (and this goes to Maffa too Wink

).

Thanks for reading Smile

seat_dreamer wrote:

Beazz, I'm not saying you are a teenager, more less trying to patronize you. I just point out that the USA is a logical country that has some goals and tries to meet them. Some of these goals include being secure, and the "bases abroad" is just another part of it, isn't it ? Isn't NATO the reason why the western world has stayed out of the claws of so many people ? While I have nothing to say on how the US money is spent (although I personally believe the F-22 is worth every penny of it), the benefits of co-operation of Europe and the US the last 60 years has been beneficial to all parties involved. There's no thing as a "european country who lives off US taxpayers money", as Maffa wants to imply, Plus european soldiers are dieing every day in our common war to stop lunatics as well.

The bottom line of the global book is: USA wants and needs to be in Europe/Asia/you pick it because it benefits you and the country that hosts the forward base. The point of being here is so you spend less dollars (via foreign sales of defense equipment that you know they won't turn against you), and your sons will have my sons fighting alongside them - a better and stronger punch. Again, consider this not as trying to patronize, but instead as a view of a european friend on the alliance and presence of your people here.

My final point is that we do not add anything to the topic, these strategies were planned 60 years ago, and remain effective today as well, and we all still benefit from it. I just believe the A vs. E argument isn't fitting in this context (and this goes to Maffa too Wink

).

Thanks for reading Smile

Hi Seat Dreamer,

As I told Maffa. my remarks for this forum were really inappropriate. Not that I don't stand by each and every one, but just not fitting for this forum.

I will keep my opinions on Eurpoe and the United States of America to my self from here on out on this forum unless someone opens a thread that actually addresses this issue.

Anyhow thanks for what seems to be an honest and genuine appreciation for what and who the United States of America is to Greece and the world in general.
BeaZz

The F-15 or FX as it was in the beginning was going to be a big a$$ swing wing thing, Those guys got it down to the present form. Wasn't the A-10 a result of the Army was going to get money for their own CAS platform, Cheyene helo I think, AF didn't want to do CAS but they did not want the Army to get the money. Listen up, the Pentagon has and always will waste the taxpayers money, the F-22 being this or that is a moot point. we will sink even more money into it in the future, just like the B-1. Someone needs to at least try to keep the Pentagon on their toes. I've met several guys who did their time at the Pentagon, every one hated it and said it was the most screwed up place in the military, even if you don't like Boyd his "Be or Do" is the heart of this arguement. What would have happened if a officer came out and backed up what Sprey said, he'd be gone, his career gone, and have no friends.

vinnie wrote:

Wasn't the A-10 a result of the Army was going to get money for their own CAS platform

No, the A-10 came about because NATO knew in an NATO/WP conflict Soviet armor out numbered NATO, in armor 5:1, artillery 11:1, etc. and that there was no dedicated CAS aircraft. The US helos outnumbered Soviet helos 8:1 (the only major weapons type where the US or NATO outnumbered the SU or WP). The US Army realized the only effective way to stop such a large armored force is with CAS.
The USAF needed an aircraft that is highly survivable and deal out a lot of 'hurt'! The problem was the USAF hated the mission of CAS and did not want it.

vinnie wrote:

AF didn't want to do CAS but they did not want the Army to get the money

The US Army is forbidden by law to operate fixed wing combat aircraft. This is why the Army is so much into helos. It has to do with the agreement between the USAAF and USA when they split to become the USAF. The USAF wanted the US Navy to agree to this also but, the admirals refused.
It would be interesting to speculate what the force composure would be if the admirals had agreed to this contract. Would we have had the F-14 or F-15 but, definitely not both!

One thing I found interesting is the GAU-8 was developed at the beginning of the competition between the Northrop YA-9 and Fairchild YA-10. That the similarity between the A-9 and the Su-25 is something to checkout. The Northrop YA-9 URL;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YA-9

Adrian

One of the two YA-9s is here in SoCal at the March Air Field Museum.

According to Squadron/Signal publications Aircraft No. 49 A-10 Warthog by Lou Drendel page 4
" The idea of a pure close air support aircraft was first set forth in 1966 by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. McConnell. After a tour of the war zone in Southwest Asia, he stated the need for an aircraft that would embody the best characteristics of venerable A-1 Skyrader, and yet-to-fly A-7 Coursair II, and would be cheaper to produce than either of them."
"Air Force testing of the A-9 and A-10 began at Edwards AFB in October, 1972."

He further tells how the first production A-10 was flown on Oct 21,1975. The total budget set in July 31, 1974 was $39 million for a production of 52 aircraft.
Ah those were the days my friend!

ACMIguy wrote:

the first production A-10 was flown on Oct 21,1975. The total budget set in July 31, 1974 was $39 million for a production of 52 aircraft.
Ah those were the days my friend!

Well let us keep things into perspective. The average man could be the sole support of his family of five while earning less than $4.00 per hour. Gasoline was around $0.50 per gal., etc.
For the price of an A-10, any country that desired it could purchase a MiG-21! (There are advantages in being a 'baby boomer'.)

Adrian

That's about $4 million per jet in today's dollars. Not a bad price for a plane still kicking butt.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

If this bother me about Sprey