F-16.net

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

Raptor_One wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

Whatever... you are a bunch of doom and gloom types. I say f--- your piss poor attitudes. You guys are full of piss and vinegar. Merry Christmas, Scrooges.

Spoken like a true twelve year old. Laughing

Sir... you are a contrarian. I will not get caught up trying to debate whether our country could prevail in a conventionally-fought third world war. I strongly believe we would. If you believe we wouldn't, go and write your congressman. I'm done.

why don't you explain how they're going to crank it up to 50 Raptors a month then?

Because I said I'm not going to get caught up trying to debate you on whether or not the USA could prevail in a conventionally-fought third world war. You even quoted where I wrote that, but you still continue to engage in debate on this subject. How 'bout this... you win the debate. You are smarter than me, more knowledgeable, etc. Happy now?

Dang I was looking for more laughs. Would have been funny to hear you explain how things really work. Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2848

Raptor_One wrote:

Whatever... you are a bunch of doom and gloom types. I say f--- your piss poor attitudes. You guys are full of piss and vinegar. Merry Christmas, Scrooges.

Yes the truth can hurt.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2848

MarcoPolo wrote:

My signature line says enough about my thoughts on the matter. (dons flamesuit, bring it on) Twisted Evil

Needs to be changed to "Longerons for life".... Or "Park the F-15s that were made on a Monday and Friday over there...." Twisted Evil

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

elp wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

Whatever... you are a bunch of doom and gloom types. I say f--- your piss poor attitudes. You guys are full of piss and vinegar. Merry Christmas, Scrooges.

Yes the truth can hurt.

So you're basically saying that the USA is doomed if we ever have to fight a conventional WWIII? And on top of that, you're saying that you know this to be a fact? Even if what you are saying IS the truth, it would only be the truth by coincidence; not because [you think] you've got the USA's strategic outlook for a conventionally-fought WWIII all figured out. You've proven nothing except that you have a very negative outlook on the USA's ability to fight the next great war (which we should all hope never happens).

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2848

Anything is possible if you are wiling to ask the Chicoms to extend the credit limit.

Don't know about "lose". However right now anything expeditionary is tapped out. Money, spare parts, manpower. Name it. Yeah we have Nukes and yes we can beat down some things with conventional PGMs with a B-2, and some other things. However, anything that requires additional occupation of foreign ground in quantity: Forget it.

Then of course you have things like us wasting resources in South Korea when in fact they can now defend themselves. You want to watch something get thrown into the meat grinder, an example would be if North Korea suddenly decided to go after South Korea. They would get bled white. And that is possible without U.S. resources there.

elp wrote:

MarcoPolo wrote:

My signature line says enough about my thoughts on the matter. (dons flamesuit, bring it on) Twisted Evil

Needs to be changed to "Longerons for life".... Or "Park the F-15s that were made on a Monday and Friday over there...." Twisted Evil

Well played sir. Kudos for originality. Very Happy

sferrin wrote:

What's that suppose to demonstrate? That you're retarded? That shot's only been dissected about 900 times as being the proverbial Golden BB and rules had to be broken to even get it.

No but it does show how easily worked up you internet warriors get. I'm ****** bored, I wanna fly goddammit. It was all in good fun, until you got all huffy. Now, if you'll excuse me I have a floor to go mop b/c my jet can't fly. Fuckin' bureaucratic bullshit this whole situation is if you ask me, but hey I'm just a crew chief. Where's the Mop-n-Glo? Oh, there it is........

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

MarcoPolo wrote:

sferrin wrote:

What's that suppose to demonstrate? That you're retarded? That shot's only been dissected about 900 times as being the proverbial Golden BB and rules had to be broken to even get it.

No but it does show how easily worked up you internet warriors get.

Who's annoyed? Just figured you were another trolling retard.

Raptor_One wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

Whatever... you are a bunch of doom and gloom types. I say f--- your piss poor attitudes. You guys are full of piss and vinegar. Merry Christmas, Scrooges.

Spoken like a true twelve year old. Laughing

Sir... you are a contrarian. I will not get caught up trying to debate whether our country could prevail in a conventionally-fought third world war. I strongly believe we would. If you believe we wouldn't, go and write your congressman. I'm done.

Hmm, I did write mine Wink

Told him if he didnt vote to keep the F22 line open I would NOT be voting for him nor would anyone else in my family. Shockingly, about 2 hours later he sent a detailed accounting of all the shiny toys that him and the rest of his brain dead coworkers on the hill are paying for. In short he polittely told me why he wasnt in favor of keepin it goin. So I wrote him bac and in short, told him he just lost 5 votes Wink

Anywho, just for the record, I dont think anyone cound defeat the US in any war. All I was saying is we have lost the industrial capacity and worse, the skill sets that go with it that we once had. We are slowly but surely becomin a *service* oriented nation instead of an industrial one IMHO. Wink

Beaz

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

If there is ever a conventional WWIII (i.e. no nukes, bio/chem warfare, etc.), then yes, we would certainly be able to ramp up production of aircraft like the F-22.

It'd be nice to have a crystal ball like yours. And if five years from now the F-15 and F-22 lines are shut down with tooling destroyed (see dumbasses Cheney and MacNamara) then what? Make due with F-35s? Great plan.

Actually, IMHO, that is not a bad plan. I think that the same amount on money spent on F-35s yield more combat capability and effectiveness than if it is spent on F-22s. By today's estimate the buy ratio is about 2.5:1 not counting R&D costs. That is you can get 2.5 F-35s for each Raptor. I seriously believe that 2.5 F-35s is more effective than 1 F-22 even in A2A.

sferrin wrote:

MarcoPolo wrote:

sferrin wrote:

What's that suppose to demonstrate? That you're retarded? That shot's only been dissected about 900 times as being the proverbial Golden BB and rules had to be broken to even get it.

No but it does show how easily worked up you internet warriors get.

Who's annoyed? Just figured you were another trolling retard.

No worries bro.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

If there is ever a conventional WWIII (i.e. no nukes, bio/chem warfare, etc.), then yes, we would certainly be able to ramp up production of aircraft like the F-22.

It'd be nice to have a crystal ball like yours. And if five years from now the F-15 and F-22 lines are shut down with tooling destroyed (see dumbasses Cheney and MacNamara) then what? Make due with F-35s? Great plan.

Actually, IMHO, that is not a bad plan. I think that the same amount on money spent on F-35s yield more combat capability and effectiveness than if it is spent on F-22s. By today's estimate the buy ratio is about 2.5:1 not counting R&D costs. That is you can get 2.5 F-35s for each Raptor. I seriously believe that 2.5 F-35s is more effective than 1 F-22 even in A2A.

Apparently the USAF (the guys who matter) don't agree with you. At one point they were willing to chop 500 F-35s for another 100 F-22s.

sferrin wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

If there is ever a conventional WWIII (i.e. no nukes, bio/chem warfare, etc.), then yes, we would certainly be able to ramp up production of aircraft like the F-22.

It'd be nice to have a crystal ball like yours. And if five years from now the F-15 and F-22 lines are shut down with tooling destroyed (see dumbasses Cheney and MacNamara) then what? Make due with F-35s? Great plan.

Actually, IMHO, that is not a bad plan. I think that the same amount on money spent on F-35s yield more combat capability and effectiveness than if it is spent on F-22s. By today's estimate the buy ratio is about 2.5:1 not counting R&D costs. That is you can get 2.5 F-35s for each Raptor. I seriously believe that 2.5 F-35s is more effective than 1 F-22 even in A2A.

Apparently the USAF (the guys who matter) don't agree with you. At one point they were willing to chop 500 F-35s for another 100 F-22s.

They were willing to chop about 500 F-35As for about 180 F-22s actually -- 20 x 9 years; 2010 through 2018.

That is not a bad thing too. ~380 F-22s + ~1200 F-35As is not a bad split. But when it comes down to it, between 1 F-22 and 2.5 F-35As, the 2.5 F-35As will be hurt the enemy more than the 1 F-22. And, this includes air superiority missions too. It is like saying that while the F-15 may have some advantages over the F-16, 2.5 F-16s will probably inflict more losses on the enemy than 1 F-15. There are two reasons the IMHO that the USAF wants the F-22. It wants to build up 5th generation fighter strength at the current rate (at least) way before the F-35 reaches FOC (circa 2015) and the only FOC 5th generation fighter in can add from now till then is the F-22. And, it wants a to able to fly a few squadrons of the silver bullet fighter in every theater in any emergency to deal with the most capable threats with near zero loss rates. 183 F-22s is not enough to go around with our global commitments. 380 will be.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

sferrin wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

If there is ever a conventional WWIII (i.e. no nukes, bio/chem warfare, etc.), then yes, we would certainly be able to ramp up production of aircraft like the F-22.

It'd be nice to have a crystal ball like yours. And if five years from now the F-15 and F-22 lines are shut down with tooling destroyed (see dumbasses Cheney and MacNamara) then what? Make due with F-35s? Great plan.

Actually, IMHO, that is not a bad plan. I think that the same amount on money spent on F-35s yield more combat capability and effectiveness than if it is spent on F-22s. By today's estimate the buy ratio is about 2.5:1 not counting R&D costs. That is you can get 2.5 F-35s for each Raptor. I seriously believe that 2.5 F-35s is more effective than 1 F-22 even in A2A.

Apparently the USAF (the guys who matter) don't agree with you. At one point they were willing to chop 500 F-35s for another 100 F-22s.

They were willing to chop about 500 F-35As for about 180 F-22s actually -- 20 x 9 years; 2010 through 2018.

Well that doesn't sound quite so crazy though I'd have sworn it was only a hundred.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2848

dwightlooi wrote:

sferrin wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

If there is ever a conventional WWIII (i.e. no nukes, bio/chem warfare, etc.), then yes, we would certainly be able to ramp up production of aircraft like the F-22.

It'd be nice to have a crystal ball like yours. And if five years from now the F-15 and F-22 lines are shut down with tooling destroyed (see dumbasses Cheney and MacNamara) then what? Make due with F-35s? Great plan.

Actually, IMHO, that is not a bad plan. I think that the same amount on money spent on F-35s yield more combat capability and effectiveness than if it is spent on F-22s. By today's estimate the buy ratio is about 2.5:1 not counting R&D costs. That is you can get 2.5 F-35s for each Raptor. I seriously believe that 2.5 F-35s is more effective than 1 F-22 even in A2A.

Apparently the USAF (the guys who matter) don't agree with you. At one point they were willing to chop 500 F-35s for another 100 F-22s.

They were willing to chop about 500 F-35As for about 180 F-22s actually -- 20 x 9 years; 2010 through 2018.

That is not a bad thing too. ~380 F-22s + ~1200 F-35As is not a bad split. But when it comes down to it, between 1 F-22 and 2.5 F-35As, the 2.5 F-35As will be hurt the enemy more than the 1 F-22. And, this includes air superiority missions too. It is like saying that while the F-15 may have some advantages over the F-16, 2.5 F-16s will probably inflict more losses on the enemy than 1 F-15. There are two reasons the IMHO that the USAF wants the F-22. It wants to build up 5th generation fighter strength at the current rate (at least) way before the F-35 reaches FOC (circa 2015) and the only FOC 5th generation fighter in can add from now till then is the F-22. And, it wants a to able to fly a few squadrons of the silver bullet fighter in every theater in any emergency to deal with the most capable threats with near zero loss rates. 183 F-22s is not enough to go around with our global commitments. 380 will be.

When F-35 becomes a known quantity then we will know.... Laughing

With the cost climb in F-35, it is becoming a silver bullet fighter. After a big IADS is beat down, (USAF) doesn't need an F-35. It also doesn't need to over-invest in a lot of short range fighters, beyond home defense and some AEF needs. The AEF thing gets more interesting as we are having less foreign bases to fly from, not more. USAF, with it's limited funds, needs to invest in more long range platforms, not a bunch of short range, gold plated fuel guzzling/tanker dependent spuds.

Oh well. The problem is going to solve itself with USAF imploding because it's current "strategy" is to survive till the next annual budget. USAF has no long range plans because, right now it can only worry about when the checkbook gets topped off again. Look at all of the other malaise in other platform roadmaps: C4ISR, airlift, tanking, long range bombers, etc.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Blow for "buy more F-22s" camp