For all those people who get thier rocks off on badass planes, this is a pretty decent video of the U.S. newest fighter the F-22A.
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/20027/F_22_Raptor.html?autoplay=true
If you look closely at the last 22 in the video you will notice that its tailfin says "TY 018". TY stands for tyndall AFB, and the 18 is the production number. FYI, that last shot is that plane flying over Panama City...and i work about 200 yards from that exact plane...kinda cool in my opinion.
The plane itself costs roughtly 225-250 million a piece...and thats a conservative estimate...or so they say. I wont go into detail on how it performs or how it looks on radar or any of that...while not entirely classified...it could likely get me in trouble, but it truly is amazing.
I basically made this thread so you could see the video, and voice your opinion on our governments new plaything.
It would cost roughly 17 million US$ oer year for three years to achieve universal literacy.
[quote=Dreadnought]It would cost roughly 17 million US$ oer year for three years to achieve universal literacy.
...but universal literacy doesn't blow up terrorists!
The F-22 is teh shiz. I like planes. Anyway, thanks for putting that video up.
Our military is relying more and more on high tech, low numbers resources. Eventually, we're going to get to a point where our forces, while being able to destroy ANYTHING that gets in their path, wont be able to cover the world (and indeed, some argue that this is already happening). You can automate and tech up as much as you want, but you're still going to need grunts with rifles out on the battlefeilds.
Waste of money:/
It is not replacing the grunts, it is replacing older fighters like the F-14 and the -16. The F-22, although it can be fitted with AGMs (I think), the F-22 is designed to fight other aircraft. Hence the F designation. (Yes I do realize the F-117 is designated as fighter but is actually a bomber)
What you have to realize spam, is that the majority of the money acquired for the production of the F-22 wasnt acquired by taking money away from the ground support forces. The air force has cut its manning by 15%, nearly 60,000 jobs to acquire this new toy. They days of needing huge armies are over. Granted, we are certainly going to be spread thin if we stay in iraq and start **** with Iran and N. Korea...
The F-22 actually saves a ton more money in fuel than that of the f-15 due to its supersonic capabality without using afterburners. Also, its going to replace many of our current frames...which in turn will most likely be sold to our allies. It really isnt just a pit we are throwing money into...its a very useful tool that will likely last for at least half a century.
BTW, this is its armamment capabilities.
[quote=Lord of Spam]Our military is relying more and more on high tech, low numbers resources. Eventually, we're going to get to a point where our forces, while being able to destroy ANYTHING that gets in their path, wont be able to cover the world (and indeed, some argue that this is already happening). You can automate and tech up as much as you want, but you're still going to need grunts with rifles out on the battlefeilds.
Waste of money:/
robots
Yeah, we totaly dont need any more troops.
Tell that to the guys in Iraq.
I don't see the need... the days of us having anything to worry about in the skies are over. Any country we're likely to start war with at best probably has Soviet Bloc export stuff, which doesn't age well. I mean, in Iraq all they had were ****ty export MiGs, not even the (decent at the time) domestic MiGs.
We easily have air superiority in numbers, and moreso with existing technology. I think "plaything" is a pretty accurate way to put it; there doesn't seem to be a really great application for it.
As far as planes that are awesome go, it's all about the recon MiG-25's. 2,200mph? 90,000ft ceiling? Hell yeah.
Throwing more troops in iraq isnt going to solve any problems...its just more of them to get killed by IED's. What iraq needs is its own **** people fighting for their own **** freedoms, instead of us dying for theirs. But thats just my opinion.
The point remains, our army is being cut. We are relying on technology to project our presence on the world, so if we ever get into a protracted war, not only are we going to run out of troops fairly quickly, but since everything is so technical training replacements will be a lot harder.
With a rifle, all you really need to know is which end to point at what you want to die, and where the trigger is.
I went to panama city a few days ago
If the next time you mention florida doesnt contain the phrase "and then I went to saint pete and chilled with matt" I might have to eat your face.
I never said they weren't neat, I said they were a waste of resources. And your paranoia isn't grounds for spending millions of dollars for no reason.
Show me an airforce that could pose a threat, not a plane, and maybe I'll buy. But in reality, the programme was started years ago, and the fighter is essentially behind the times in terms of what we need planes for these days, and also in foreseable conflict. We're not in the 60's and 70's anymore.
[quote=Misoxeny]But in reality, the programme was started years ago, and the fighter is essentially behind the times in terms of what we need planes for these days, and also in foreseable conflict.
Would you rather have a sliglthly obosolete plane or a very obsolete plane?
There are many capable air forces out there other than ours, just none that we are at war with...at the moment. Granted, certain aspects of the F-22 are less necessary than once anticipated, such as its stealth capabilities, but that all depends whether or not our future enemy has thermal radar. The program was started 13 years ago...and considering how long it usually takes to design, build, test, weapons certify and bring it up to full battle readiness...thats a fairly short time period. There is really no other plane capable of what its is able to do...so i feel its leaps and bounds ahead of the times...but i guess only time will tell, we'll see how many get shot down.
Wrath from above!
The F-16 and 15 are not as stealthy as the F-22. also I believe that the F-22 has a better radar. This means we can detect enimies from farther away and essentially get in range with something like an AIM-9 and blow them out of the sky with minimal casulaties. If we can keep the enemy combatant from knowing the plane is there before the missle gets in range of there threat radar, which by that point your thourogly ****ed.
Isn't Eurofighter meant to be able to kick the crap out of pretty much everything? Well, aside from that being built with the guns still in place because it's too much money to connect them or remove them, which is rather amusing.
I always found that whole "look at a target and it will launch a missile automatically" thing to be pretty awesome/frightening.
Im not so sure that there is a "lock on and shoot automatically" because that would most likely create an international incident...targets still need to be verified as enemies....and it only takes a second to push a button and lauch a missile, so that feature seems pretty lame to me anyways.
However, i believe misoxeny is refferring to either the Sukhoi-27 or the MiG-29. The Su-27 is one of the only planes that can pull its nose straight up while still fly foward while mainting relatively the same altitude. This is called the "Cobra" technique and it is used for shooting missiles at targets directly above you...which is generally a weakspot on most aircraft.
The MiG-29 however, well...at least the more advanced models...have a very powerful radar. Other than that...the only thing that makes that aircraft so amazing is its versatility and maneuverability.
The eurofighter is gay...any delta wing aircraft looks lame IMO.
The F-22A was designed to be the greatest and most powerful plane on the planet, as its planning began in a time when the United States was still locked in conflict with the Soviet Union, a country which, at the time, was perfectly capible of taking on the United States and winning. It was initially designed to replace almost all the fighters on the U.S. roster, but after the Soviet Union fell, the planned production went from well over 900, to just under 150. Go figure. Same story with the B-2 Spirit, a mega bomber designed to replace all and take on anything in the world, then the Soviet Union falls, and planned production goes from over 100 to just 17. Now that there's no reason to have a weapon as powerful as the F-22A, the United States has began building the much cheaper [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35]F-35[/url], designed to enter service in 2011 at a cost of about 30 million per plane.
All your complaining is for nothing, the F-22A hasn't replaced anything like it was planned to, it's just a mega weapon that the United States has at its disposal, just in case.