Pentagon tests: F-22 has maintenance shortcomings

[Johnny Rico]

Why not simply stop using planes all together? That whole war thing is quite unproductive anyway. Better to pour that money into better education and welfare.

Yeah, now that we have a Dem as President and big Democratic majorities in Congress, I think we all know now what "spend the money here" really means....huge multi-trillion dollar debts...that's what. But I digress...

Anyway, the F-22...I really hate to see the funding go away for this plane. Because from a little statement from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumfeld said, "You go to war with the military you HAVE." If we cut funding to these new 5th generarion aircraft, in the future we're going to go to war with the military we HAD.

But that said, if the F-35 JSF is more capable than the F-22, then maybe we can make a fair trade here.

I haven't been keeping up on what armaments each plane can carry, but if the F-22 is restricted to anti-air armaments, while if the F-35 can carry air-to-ground armaments, then perhaps the F-35 is the better choice.

But my concern is the difference between one and two engines. The F-22 has two, the F-35 has just one. Which means of course, it's always better to have more than one engine in combat. Because if one fails, the other can get you home. When you only have one engine, you're shitty outta luck if that one fails.

So I don't know...

 

[Squiggy]

Why not simply stop using planes all together? That whole war thing is quite unproductive anyway. Better to pour that money into better education and welfare.

Yeah, now that we have a Dem as President and big Democratic majorities in Congress, I think we all know now what "spend the money here" really means....huge multi-trillion dollar debts...that's what. But I digress...

TNZ is this way.

 

[FPAlpha]

Spoken like a man who has never seen what an F-15 can do...

Vectoring does help with manuevering, among other things.

Also, those MiG, Sukhoi and Eurofighter planes are being flown by second fiddle pilots. You can have as many super planes as you want. If the pilot is shit, so's the plane. The Europeans have already seen this back in WW2 when the Luftwaffe had no choice but to use shit pilots in their primitive jet fighters. The prop-driven P-47 & P-51 fighters annihilated them.

Spoken like a true ignorant and arrogant American... thanks for proving that stereotype.

Years ago while on a test flight an Eurofighter encountered 2 F15s over England and did a spontaneous training dogfight.. proved that a) the Eurofighter is a superior design and b) that European pilots are not second fiddle to anyone becaue it proceeded to truly give them an ass kicking.

And you don't know anything about WW2 aviation it seems or you would have known that the german jet fighter were introduced very late in the war when Germany had all but lost its best pilots while the Allied pilots only increased in experience because the US constantly rotated experienced pilots back to the US to train up new pilots thus giving them an edge right out of pilot school.

Please stick your head a bit out of your little toybox.. i know that you are giddy to join the US armed forces and consider them the best at everything which may not be that accurate. The US didn't go toe to toe with an enemy that's using tech and tactics of the same level (any western nation) so it's no wonder it kicks everyone's ass (on general) they have fought in the last 10-20 years.

 

[Marc]

Why not simply stop using planes all together? That whole war thing is quite unproductive anyway. Better to pour that money into better education and welfare.

Yeah, now that we have a Dem as President and big Democratic majorities in Congress, I think we all know now what "spend the money here" really means....huge multi-trillion dollar debts...that's what. But I digress...

TNZ is this way.

As has frequently been pointed out some posters in this forum.

In the meantime I guess he missed the reports on how much the the program that Bush started to replace helicopters used as Marine One etc.

Each chopper is going go cost $400mil which is the same price tag as to get two 747s and converted for Air Force One.

Print Email Share Add to My Stories
Nuclear attack no time for a snack: Obama

Posted Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:17am AEST
US President Barack Obama has taken aim at costly military programs of debatable value, saying he does not need a presidential helicopter with an Armageddon-proof kitchen.
"It would let me cook a meal while under nuclear attack," he said.
"Let me tell you something: if the United States of America is under nuclear attack, the last thing on my mind will be whipping up a snack."
Mr Obama's comments come after he pledged to fight against "exotic projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget" in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars service organisation.
"Cut the waste; save taxpayer dollars; support the troops. If a project doesn't support our troops, if it does not make America safer, we will not fund it," he said.
The US Navy charged Lockheed Martin to build a fleet of 28 helicopters to serve as Marine One in 2005; the project originally was meant to cost around $US6 billion ($7 billion) but has skyrocketed up to $US11.2 billion.
Each aircraft will now cost about $US400 million - more than the cost of the two adapted Boeing 747 aircraft now serving as Air Force One.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/18/2659006.htm?section=justin