US Miltary News - F22

Messages
6,638
Location
South Florida
Originally Posted by DallasTexas
Fortunately we live in a democracy (I came from a 3rd world dictatorship country).
A purely democratic government is the actual definition of tyranny. We live in a constitutional republic.
 
Messages
311
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by bubbatime
Originally Posted by DallasTexas
Fortunately we live in a democracy (I came from a 3rd world dictatorship country).
A purely democratic government is the actual definition of tyranny. We live in a constitutional republic.
System we have seems to be working, whatever one wants to call. I am currently concerned about the union, but we should overcome these hiccups too.
 
Originally Posted by bubbatime
A purely democratic government is the actual definition of tyranny.
Also known as mobocracy... And yes, unless some disgruntled employee leaks info (which would likely be a crime), by the time the general public knows about our "current" best aircraft, they are already at least one generation old... meaning its replacement is already flying or in final stages of development. My grandfather worked as a hydraulic engineer on the SR-71 in the ‘60s with Kelly Johnson, and until after they were fully decommissioned and had the transcontinental flight on National TV, not even my grandma ever knew he had worked on any plane, let alone the Blackbird.
 

ZeeOSix

Thread starter
Messages
27,866
Location
PNW
We won't be sending drones out to take on other high tech fighter jets that are typically sent in for first strikes. They don't send drones out from Elmendorf AFB when the Russians fly too close to the USA. Drones (with "pilots" in a can 100s of miles away) have their place, but they won't ever replace a manned fighter in our life time. Maybe many decades down the road when they can think and fly by themselves.
 

ZeeOSix

Thread starter
Messages
27,866
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
And yes, unless some disgruntled employee leaks info (which would likely be a crime), by the time the general public knows about our "current" best aircraft, they are already at least one generation old... meaning its replacement is already flying or in final stages of development.
Keep in mind that older planes like the F-22 have a pretty big "Modernization" program where they are constantly being upgraded with more current technology.
 
Messages
311
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
And yes, unless some disgruntled employee leaks info (which would likely be a crime), by the time the general public knows about our "current" best aircraft, they are already at least one generation old... meaning its replacement is already flying or in final stages of development.
Keep in mind that older planes like the F-22 have a pretty big "Modernization" program where they are constantly being upgraded with more current technology.
B52 bombers are going to be 100 years old before they get retired, as they are being constantly being upgraded. The subsonic plane doesn't have the wear tear of supersonic airframe.
 

ZeeOSix

Thread starter
Messages
27,866
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by DallasTexas
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
And yes, unless some disgruntled employee leaks info (which would likely be a crime), by the time the general public knows about our "current" best aircraft, they are already at least one generation old... meaning its replacement is already flying or in final stages of development.
Keep in mind that older planes like the F-22 have a pretty big "Modernization" program where they are constantly being upgraded with more current technology.
B52 bombers are going to be 100 years old before they get retired, as they are being constantly being upgraded. The subsonic plane doesn't have the wear tear of supersonic airframe.
When pilots fly the F-22 for flight time and training purposes, they are rarely going supersonic. Save it for when it really matters.
 
Messages
311
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DallasTexas
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
And yes, unless some disgruntled employee leaks info (which would likely be a crime), by the time the general public knows about our "current" best aircraft, they are already at least one generation old... meaning its replacement is already flying or in final stages of development.
Keep in mind that older planes like the F-22 have a pretty big "Modernization" program where they are constantly being upgraded with more current technology.
B52 bombers are going to be 100 years old before they get retired, as they are being constantly being upgraded. The subsonic plane doesn't have the wear tear of supersonic airframe.
When pilots fly the F-22 for flight time and training purposes, they are rarely going supersonic. Save it for when it really matters.
You are correct most fighters selfdom go into supersonic speed. The F22 can go into "Super Cruise" and can stay there, unlike other fighters that are using afterburner to stay in supersonic speed and using massive amount of fuel.
 
Messages
5,702
Location
Atlanta,GA
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
$600 million/year to fight an enemy which will never exist?
The F-35 program is spending way more money than the F-22 program ever did.
Perhaps but the F22 has but one role for only one branch whereas the F35 is designed to do much more by serving at least two branches. In addition the F35 would've been cheaper if the USMC didn't have their stupid V/STOL requirement.
The F22 would have been cheaper per unit too if they didn't cancel the program right when it was at the point where production was pretty much optimized. And keep in mind that every fighter aircraft program has constant upgrades and maintenance costs ... so the F-35 program wouldn't be any better in that respect as time went on. Also, the whole development program of the F-22 (first 5th Gen super stealth fighter) served them well to use lots of the same technology and lessons learned when designing the F-35, so that could have helped make the per unit cost of F-35s lower.
Zero chance that the F22 can been retrofitted for carrier landings let alone operate in that environment. The Navy didn't want anything to do with it from the beginning.
 

CT8

Messages
15,392
Location
Idaho
[/quote] B52 bombers are going to be 100 years old before they get retired, as they are being constantly being upgraded. The subsonic plane doesn't have the wear tear of supersonic airframe.[/quote] Especially if the U.S. military only attacks third world nations
 

ZeeOSix

Thread starter
Messages
27,866
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
The F-35 program is spending way more money than the F-22 program ever did.
Perhaps but the F22 has but one role for only one branch whereas the F35 is designed to do much more by serving at least two branches. In addition the F35 would've been cheaper if the USMC didn't have their stupid V/STOL requirement.
The F22 would have been cheaper per unit too if they didn't cancel the program right when it was at the point where production was pretty much optimized. And keep in mind that every fighter aircraft program has constant upgrades and maintenance costs ... so the F-35 program wouldn't be any better in that respect as time went on. Also, the whole development program of the F-22 (first 5th Gen super stealth fighter) served them well to use lots of the same technology and lessons learned when designing the F-35, so that could have helped make the per unit cost of F-35s lower.
Zero chance that the F22 can been retrofitted for carrier landings let alone operate in that environment. The Navy didn't want anything to do with it from the beginning.
Apples and oranges platforms. I'm not talking about that level of mods/upgrades. The Navy got by without VSTOL before, so their "requirement" for it just complicated the design and added lots of program cost, and that probably goes for the maintaining costs also.
 
Messages
311
Location
Texas
BMW TDzl, correct, F22 airframe is not designed to have a tailhook. It will have to be redesigned airframe ($$$). CT8 absolutely right on B52, likelihood of US going into a full fledged war with a global power are Zero. The war planes for US are designed to beat Airforce vs Navy exercises as to who will win or at least that was my perception in my 30+ years in design, EMD and Production.
 

ZeeOSix

Thread starter
Messages
27,866
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by DallasTexas
BMW TDzl, correct, F22 airframe is not designed to have a tailhook. It will have to be redesigned airframe ($$$).
The F22 does have a tailhook, but it's for emergency landings, and not specifically carrier use.
 
Messages
311
Location
Texas
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DallasTexas
BMW TDzl, correct, F22 airframe is not designed to have a tailhook. It will have to be redesigned airframe ($$$).
The F22 does have a tailhook, but it's for emergency landings, and not specifically carrier use.
Stand corrected
 
Messages
4,597
Location
Manchester, England
Go back to the F15, it's 600 km/h faster! And while you're at it, bring back the A12 and SR71. And the space shuttle - you guys keep on taking the fast vehicles out of service!
 
Messages
5,702
Location
Atlanta,GA
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Apples and oranges platforms. I'm not talking about that level of mods/upgrades. The Navy got by without VSTOL before, so their "requirement" for it just complicated the design and added lots of program cost, and that probably goes for the maintaining costs also.
US Marines required VSTOL as a replacement for their Harriers. It was not a NAVY requirement (As I understand it the Navy really wanted a two engine aircraft, but I guess you can't have two engines w/VSTOL or it would be crazy expensive).
 
Last edited:
Top