Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The F-22, Domestic Jobs, and the Military-Industrial Complex

168101112

Posts

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Drones. Spend it on drones. Why send people out to fight. Have the robots do it. Until they get pissed.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    Drones. Spend it on drones. Why send people out to fight. Have the robots do it. Until they get pissed.

    Boots on the ground, you can't fight a war from 10,000 feet or whatever altitude a drone flies at. Anyway, the drones have a guidance system sort of like an autopilot, they don't directly control them.. they essentially tell it where to go. (the current modern ones use satellites and then pilots at an airbase to directly control them for take off and landing)

    When firing off weapons that's a human decision, computer object recognition is probably 20 years if not more behind a human brains ability to recognise and guess what objects are on a ground. i.e. "Is that a terrorist or a civilian", "is that tank a real tank or is it just a fake cardboard tank" etc.

    I personally think for those kind of scenarios the humans can never be taken out of the loop, it requires human experience and foresignt into a situation.
    Spoiler:

    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    Drones. Spend it on drones. Why send people out to fight. Have the robots do it. Until they get pissed.

    And then we have robots that we have taught to use guns.

    That will not end well.

  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Drones. Spend it on drones. Why send people out to fight. Have the robots do it. Until they get pissed.

    And then we have robots that we have taught to use guns.

    That will not end well.

    I'm sure the first two times it will end well, however the third and fourth will be pretty meh.

    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    I understand that. I am simply stating the capabilities of the aircraft. Not making a case for cost effectiveness.

    Yes and people are pointing out that the F-22 is effective but impractical and seems ot be designed for a war that will never happen

  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous WALK 3X FASTER New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    So what's this I hear about the SU-27 and all of its current production variants being this ridiculous boogieman superplane that can out-perform everything in everyone's arsenal up to and including the F/A-18E (as far as "recent designs" go)?


    I know I've heard this argument before on this forum.

    zaku.png
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: WaffleMous#1483
  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    I understand that. I am simply stating the capabilities of the aircraft. Not making a case for cost effectiveness.

    Yes and people are pointing out that the F-22 is effective but impractical and seems ot be designed for a war that will never happen

    On the other hand, planes like the F-22, Eurofighter etc are sort of like nuclear weapons (very loosely) in that they act as a deterrent and prevent anyone from getting any ideas.

    But then, Americas and Europe's massive technological military technology lead, high quality troops and already excellent weapons do a pretty job too.

    The fact that North Korea (for example) hasn't actually tried anything militarily is because they know that the US would annihilate them with conventional weapons alone if they tried it. China isn't even a factor any more, they honestly don't give much of a shit about NK. I could see how planes like the F-22 might give China second thoughts from getting involved, but frankly China cares more about money nowadays than any ideology.

    So what's this I hear about the SU-27 and all of its current production variants being this ridiculous boogieman superplane that can out-perform everything in everyone's arsenal up to and including the F/A-18E?


    I know I've heard this argument before on this forum.


    I think ultimately the western arms manufacturers hype them up more than the Russians themselves could ever hope of what they'd actually be capable of. Every single time the west has gotten their hands on Russian aircraft we've discovered every single time about how inferior they are to their western equivalents. Companies like BAE, Lockheed Martin etc. hype up those aircraft as super planes and the idiots believe them because they look good at an air show. The Russians simply don't put the same level of investment into weapons development that they did during the cold war, during the 90's they did pretty much zero development you can't stagnate your R&D for so long without there being consequences.

    I'd place good money that if the west got their hands on say an SU-35 and put it up against an F-22, F-35 or a Eurofighter in mock dogfights or in technical analysis of weapons systems, engines etc that those three western planes would walk away winning by bloody miles.

    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    You know I remember vaguely similar discussions around the early 90s.


    Remember Iraq? You know, when they were the third most powerful military on the planet. Saddam had Mig-29 Fulcrums.

    This is what happened when they went up against the (at the time) less capable F-15s

    bowden_f22_003_200.jpg

    That's a missilecam image of a Mig-29 about 1/10th of a second before it exploded. How fast your fighter can bank doesn't really mean as much as the general public thinks it does.

    I've been posting on this forum in an attempt to train myself to resist arguments that make my head explode.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The Su-27 isn't really better then the F-15. That Cobra-manuver it does? F-16,18 and 22 can do it to, its just that their avionics safeguards won't let them. Nothing special about the airframe at all.

    As for the MiG-29 its biggest inovation was its helmet system. It could target enemies without using the HUD. Obvious in hindsight, but completly new when it was first introduced. There are upgrades in the works to give it to 4gen fighters.

    The MiG-27 was a joke rethread of the MiG-23.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    In 1991 the Mig-29 was a big deal, but to my knowledge they didn't actually score any kills.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • FilFil Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    Drones. Spend it on drones. Why send people out to fight. Have the robots do it. Until they get pissed.

    Except you can't win hearts, minds and a counter-insurgency with an army of drones.
    This is what happened when they went up against the (at the time) less capable F-15s

    bowden_f22_003_200.jpg

    That's a missilecam image of a Mig-29 about 1/10th of a second before it exploded. How fast your fighter can bank doesn't really mean as much as the general public thinks it does.

    I don't know if you just GISed that image or if you actually read the originating article, but there's a longer story behind that picture:
    Rodriguez dove steeply, getting below the lead MiG, where he would be harder to find on its radar—pointing down, the radar’s signal can get confused by all the signals* bouncing back up from the ground. Then Rodriguez began flying in a low arc, keeping the MiG on his wing line, making himself “skinny,” presenting as small a radar target as possible. Within minutes the two fighters would be in a visual turning fight, a situation familiar to many experienced pilots from earlier wars, but one that is not supposed to happen in modern air warfare. The biggest difference between this fight and the old ones was speed. It would unfold not in minutes but in seconds. Rodriguez’s posture was strictly defensive: he could not target and shoot at the Iraqi plane, but it could shoot at him.

    A cockpit alarm warned him when the MiG’s radar locked on him. The threat was still just a blip on his screen; he hadn’t actually seen it yet. He was frightened and thinking furiously when in his headset he heard Underhill shout, “Fox!”—the code word for I have just fired a missile.

    Rodriguez looked back over his shoulder, following the smoke trail of Underhill’s missile, and then, looking out ahead of it, caught his first and only glimpse of the MiG. This is the precise instant captured from the Iraqi pilot’s perspective in the photo on Rodriguez’s wall. It turns out that the picture does not preserve a moment of personal triumph for him, as I had originally supposed, but one of intense fear and vulnerability. Rodriguez’s little F‑15 in the distance was not predator but prey, trapped and awaiting a kill shot that would never come, because in the next instant the MiG became a huge fireball in the sky. The whole encounter lasted a little more than 10 seconds.

    “Mole saves my bacon because he kills this guy before he can take a shot at me,” Rodriguez said as we sat in his office.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Well I read an article with bad information!

    Owell

    Edit: I've been reading up on the Eurofighter, it seems comparable to the F-22 but all the problems it has are more muted, and it's far cheaper. Maybe we should have just bought the design of the eurofighter and gone off of that lol.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    I personally think for those kind of scenarios the humans can never be taken out of the loop, it requires human experience and foresignt into a situation.
    I don't disagree. But, with drones, you have people in the rear with the gear.

    Besides, it gives the coming generation of asthmatic fat-asses a chance to serve their country.
    GungHo wrote: »
    I understand that. I am simply stating the capabilities of the aircraft. Not making a case for cost effectiveness.
    Yes and people are pointing out that the F-22 is effective but impractical and seems ot be designed for a war that will never happen
    Probably will never happen. We hope will never happen. Still, it'd be nice to be able to blow something up with them. I paid for the motherfuckers. Why can't I see it make some shit-shack go boom? I mean... to spend that much money to just look at it because it doesn't like going outside? It's like buying a hooker you never fuck.
    So what's this I hear about the SU-27 and all of its current production variants being this ridiculous boogieman superplane that can out-perform everything in everyone's arsenal up to and including the F/A-18E (as far as "recent designs" go)?
    Russian boogieman concerns also existed around the MiG-25 (which led to the development of the F-15), the MiG-29, and a little of the MiG-31, though by then the dress had been lifted. The 25, especially, scared the shit out of everyone.
    Fil wrote: »
    Except you can't win hearts, minds and a counter-insurgency with an army of drones.
    You can't really win them with an army of F-22s either... because they can't actually see you in the cockpit.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    Fil wrote: »
    Except you can't win hearts, minds and a counter-insurgency with an army of drones.
    You can't really win them with an army of F-22s either... because they can't actually see you in the cockpit.

    Plus a lot of people think of Americas obsession with airpower is a sign of cowardice. They think the US only wants to fight when its completly safe and will recoil of they suffer significant ground losses.

    Thats the lesson they drew from Somalia and Bosnia. Thats the lesson Bin Laden preached after Kosovo. That America was scared of going toe to toe with people and only had the courage to bomb people from 30k feet up in the air.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    daaamn
    thats gotta be the scariest feeling in the world

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Well I read an article with bad information!

    Owell

    Edit: I've been reading up on the Eurofighter, it seems comparable to the F-22 but all the problems it has are more muted, and it's far cheaper. Maybe we should have just bought the design of the eurofighter and gone off of that lol.

    It's cheaper? Please provide info. All I know is from Wikipedia. :oops:

    Quoth Wikipedia, the source of all human knowledge:

    F-22 $137.5MM ("5th Generation Fighter")
    Eurofighter Typhoon $114MM ("4.5th Generation Fighter")

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Well I'm factoring in development costs, the F-22 program as a whole is up to almost $70b

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Recoil42Recoil42 Registered User
    edited July 2009
    enc0re wrote: »
    Well I read an article with bad information!

    Owell

    Edit: I've been reading up on the Eurofighter, it seems comparable to the F-22 but all the problems it has are more muted, and it's far cheaper. Maybe we should have just bought the design of the eurofighter and gone off of that lol.

    It's cheaper? Please provide info. All I know is from Wikipedia. :oops:

    Quoth Wikipedia, the source of all human knowledge:

    F-22 $137.5MM ("5th Generation Fighter")
    Eurofighter Typhoon $114MM ("4.5th Generation Fighter")

    The F-22 is not $137.5M. IIRC, that's the original quote, and since then, program costs have run up to something like $270m per plane. That's the point, it's a program that has gone vastly overbudget, and far under-delivered for costs.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Recoil42 wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    It's cheaper? Please provide info. All I know is from Wikipedia. :oops:

    Quoth Wikipedia, the source of all human knowledge:

    F-22 $137.5MM ("5th Generation Fighter")
    Eurofighter Typhoon $114MM ("4.5th Generation Fighter")

    The F-22 is not $137.5M. IIRC, that's the original quote, and since then, program costs have run up to something like $270m per plane. That's the point, it's a program that has gone vastly overbudget, and far under-delivered for costs.

    Link please.

  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited July 2009
    So talking about air superiority— is it really that far out of our technological abilities to build a robotic kill vehicle which flies around a certain designated area at mach 10 and shoots missiles at anything in the air that isn't a robotic kill vehicle?

    tmkm.jpg
  • FilFil Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Recoil42 wrote: »
    The F-22 is not $137.5M. IIRC, that's the original quote, and since then, program costs have run up to something like $270m per plane. That's the point, it's a program that has gone vastly overbudget, and far under-delivered for costs.

    I haven't heard of this, BUT if this were the case, then everything makes so much more sense!

    Then you really are buying 2 F-35s for the price of a Raptor, and it would explain why a bill for funding 7 additional fighters would run up $1.7 billion dollars!

    In other words, I don't know his sources, but I feel convinced that he's speaking the truth.

    Incidentally, I do know the F-35 cost estimates are hovering around $100 mil (possibly more at this point), which is beyond the Wikipedia list price.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    I must say, the most gloriously over the top thing I've read is this. I can only imagine the conversation that sparked this.
    "Hey Bob, how do you think we should defend our aircraft from missiles? Stealth, chaff, electronic radar jamm-"
    "LASERS!"
    "But don't those have heat-"
    "LIQUID LASERS!"
    "Wouldn't that be heavy?"
    "POTTERY LIQUID LASERS!"
    "Okay..."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • FilFil Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Have you seen the pictures out of the USAF Starfire Optical Range? Yes, that's actually the name of the place.

    398px-Starfield_Optical_Range_-_sodium_laser.jpg

    610px-Starfire_Optical_Range_-_three_lasers_into_space.jpg

  • His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Hey if the F-22 actually was a working functional aircraft that we used I wouldn't be as upset.
    That's really the thing. They're not flying in Iraq.

    Red herring. It's an air superiority fighter. Iraq no longer has an airforce. There's no need for it to fly in Iraq.
    Saddam chose to disassemble and bury his planes rather than fly against Coalition aircraft. The F-22 would've been completely useless at any stage of the war.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Plus a lot of people think of Americas obsession with airpower is a sign of cowardice. They think the US only wants to fight when its completly safe and will recoil of they suffer significant ground losses.

    Thats the lesson they drew from Somalia and Bosnia. Thats the lesson Bin Laden preached after Kosovo. That America was scared of going toe to toe with people and only had the courage to bomb people from 30k feet up in the air.
    Who goes toe-to-toe when they don't have to? Does anyone really expect the US to send some people out to die the hard way just cause it's more macho? Fuck that shit.
    Fil wrote: »
    Incidentally, I do know the F-35 cost estimates are hovering around $100 mil (possibly more at this point), which is beyond the Wikipedia list price.
    Wikipedia is the new Jane's.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    I personally think for those kind of scenarios the humans can never be taken out of the loop, it requires human experience and foresignt into a situation.
    I don't disagree. But, with drones, you have people in the rear with the gear.

    Besides, it gives the coming generation of asthmatic fat-asses a chance to serve their country.

    Um, one thing people always forget about those neat drones and how than can be flown from the safety of anywhere that's not the battlefield is that someone needs to launch the damn things. And that can't exactly happen in Milwaukee when you want to Nintendo-kill some dudes in Pashtunistan.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Being at a FOB isn't in the rear with the gear? Beyond the hand-launched, electric hobby planes the Israelis use, a Predator-series UAVs launch from airstrips.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Hey if the F-22 actually was a working functional aircraft that we used I wouldn't be as upset.
    That's really the thing. They're not flying in Iraq.

    Red herring. It's an air superiority fighter. Iraq no longer has an airforce. There's no need for it to fly in Iraq.
    Saddam chose to disassemble and bury his planes rather than fly against Coalition aircraft. The F-22 would've been completely useless at any stage of the war.

    I think that's the whole point. We've been focusing on more and better air superiority fighters when what we really need are ground attack planes and mainline bombers. We're still using the ancient B-52, because its successors aren't nearly as good at doing what we actually need done: staying above a battlefield for a long time to deal with emergent threats, and carrying a fuckload of bombs.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Right, but airstrips in-country, not back in the States.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Plus a lot of people think of Americas obsession with airpower is a sign of cowardice. They think the US only wants to fight when its completly safe and will recoil of they suffer significant ground losses.

    Thats the lesson they drew from Somalia and Bosnia. Thats the lesson Bin Laden preached after Kosovo. That America was scared of going toe to toe with people and only had the courage to bomb people from 30k feet up in the air.
    Who goes toe-to-toe when they don't have to? Does anyone really expect the US to send some people out to die the hard way just cause it's more macho? Fuck that shit.

    The fact that you can tell the difference between a wedding party and a terrorist colum from 30k feet is reason enough. Killing civilians is not the way to go dude.

    Plus a reputation for cowardice is bad, when you want deter people from attacking you.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    deowolf wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    I personally think for those kind of scenarios the humans can never be taken out of the loop, it requires human experience and foresignt into a situation.
    I don't disagree. But, with drones, you have people in the rear with the gear.

    Besides, it gives the coming generation of asthmatic fat-asses a chance to serve their country.

    Um, one thing people always forget about those neat drones and how than can be flown from the safety of anywhere that's not the battlefield is that someone needs to launch the damn things. And that can't exactly happen in Milwaukee when you want to Nintendo-kill some dudes in Pashtunistan.

    You're right. You have to be in Nevada.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam / mwo: calverin
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Well, not for launch and recovery elements, no.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    deowolf wrote: »
    Right, but airstrips in-country, not back in the States.
    Don't they have an automated boat for this now?

    It's terrifyingly Skynet-esque.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    deowolf wrote: »
    Well, not for launch and recovery elements, no.

    And that's why we're allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam / mwo: calverin
  • KhavallKhavall Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Plus a lot of people think of Americas obsession with airpower is a sign of cowardice. They think the US only wants to fight when its completly safe and will recoil of they suffer significant ground losses.

    Thats the lesson they drew from Somalia and Bosnia. Thats the lesson Bin Laden preached after Kosovo. That America was scared of going toe to toe with people and only had the courage to bomb people from 30k feet up in the air.
    Who goes toe-to-toe when they don't have to? Does anyone really expect the US to send some people out to die the hard way just cause it's more macho? Fuck that shit.

    The fact that you can tell the difference between a wedding party and a terrorist colum from 30k feet is reason enough. Killing civilians is not the way to go dude.

    Plus a reputation for cowardice is bad, when you want deter people from attacking you.

    what

    You're saying that the US should instead of low-risk bombing in the event that intel is botched to shit and they have no clue what they're bombing, send in troops on the ground who have about a billion percent increase in chance of troop loss?

    And that people will totally attack us all the time if we have a reputation for dropping bombs on them instead of needlessly dying?

  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    Well, not for launch and recovery elements, no.

    And that's why we're allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    And here I was thinking it was because of our shared ideals and love of cheap gas. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Plus a lot of people think of Americas obsession with airpower is a sign of cowardice. They think the US only wants to fight when its completly safe and will recoil of they suffer significant ground losses.

    Thats the lesson they drew from Somalia and Bosnia. Thats the lesson Bin Laden preached after Kosovo. That America was scared of going toe to toe with people and only had the courage to bomb people from 30k feet up in the air.
    Who goes toe-to-toe when they don't have to? Does anyone really expect the US to send some people out to die the hard way just cause it's more macho? Fuck that shit.

    The fact that you can tell the difference between a wedding party and a terrorist colum from 30k feet is reason enough. Killing civilians is not the way to go dude.

    Plus a reputation for cowardice is bad, when you want deter people from attacking you.

    what

    You're saying that the US should instead of low-risk bombing in the event that intel is botched to shit and they have no clue what they're bombing, send in troops on the ground who have about a billion percent increase in chance of troop loss?

    And that people will totally attack us all the time if we have a reputation for dropping bombs on them instead of needlessly dying?
    It's the "but they might call us 'chicken'" school of military strategy.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • TaranisTaranis Must be the feeling, it brings to you That makes you do what you doRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    deowolf wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    Well, not for launch and recovery elements, no.

    And that's why we're allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    And here I was thinking it was because of our shared ideals and love of cheap gas. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    Well I'm sure they're not letting us have airstrips in their country for free. Regardless, the Predator can fly out of Qatar and almost make it to Beijing. That's enough range to keep the crew on the airstrip out of harms way. I still think it's a bad idea to switch to an all unmanned Air Force. We could probably cut back on some of the pilots, but completely unmanned is a bad idea.

    nerosig_zps80ae1f48.png
    steam / mwo: calverin
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Taranis wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    Well, not for launch and recovery elements, no.

    And that's why we're allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    And here I was thinking it was because of our shared ideals and love of cheap gas. <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    Well I'm sure they're not letting us have airstrips in their country for free. Regardless, the Predator can fly out of Qatar and almost make it to Beijing. That's enough range to keep the crew on the airstrip out of harms way. I still think it's a bad idea to switch to an all unmanned Air Force. We could probably cut back on some of the pilots, but completely unmanned is a bad idea.

    I was thinking more of Afghanistan than Iraq, but either way, any long distance travel to a target takes away time on the target for surveillance or strikes. They can stay up there a good long while, but it's better to be close because you don't want the little lawn mower engine to go out when there's no one around to pull the cord.

    And I agree - unmanned is best as a partial measure. What would we do in the Air Force if we had no real pilots to worship?

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Recoil42Recoil42 Registered User
    edited July 2009
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Hey if the F-22 actually was a working functional aircraft that we used I wouldn't be as upset.
    That's really the thing. They're not flying in Iraq.

    Red herring. It's an air superiority fighter. Iraq no longer has an airforce. There's no need for it to fly in Iraq.
    Saddam chose to disassemble and bury his planes rather than fly against Coalition aircraft. The F-22 would've been completely useless at any stage of the war.

    I think that's the whole point. We've been focusing on more and better air superiority fighters when what we really need are ground attack planes and mainline bombers. We're still using the ancient B-52, because its successors aren't nearly as good at doing what we actually need done: staying above a battlefield for a long time to deal with emergent threats, and carrying a fuckload of bombs.

    Fun fact: The B-52 has been in service since 1955.

    It's only scheduled to leave service in 2040.

    That's not a typo. Twenty-fucking-forty.

    A plane that entered the design phase in the mid 20th century, just after WW2 -- will only leave service by the middle of the 21st century. How insane is that?

Sign In or Register to comment.