Expensive isnt even close. Try $137 millon. The F-15 by comparsion was $29million in 1998, still only 36.5 Million when adjusted for inflation. You could buy 4 F-15s for the price of one Raptor. I myself like the Raptor, but it is very expensive. The F-15 isnt that old, hell B-52s from the cold war are still bombing over in Iraq, as said earlier, if it aint broke dont fix it.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
How is the F22 useless? As good as the F15 is we need to upgrade to the next generation. Just because we are fighting a force with no air force now doesn't mean we won't in the next few years, by then it's too late to develop a new aircraft.
It it expensive? yes. But it is also unmatched by any other fighter in the world.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- US Department of Justice Dumps Dragon Skin Body Armor
The F-15 in all air forces has an air-to-air combined kill record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat. I don't think an American fighter has been shot down since the Korean War.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
It it expensive? yes. But it is also unmatched by any other fighter in the world.
With newer, far more costly aircraft than the Marines possess, the Air Force pleads that it just can't defend our country without devouring the nation's defense budget. Meanwhile the Air Force twiddles its thumbs and dreams of war with China. Its leaders would even revive the Soviet Union, if they could. Just to have something to do.
The F-22 will never serve as a CAS or fighter bomber. If you start hanging ordnance on that beauty, speed and stealth die. So what is it built for? Air-to-air and nothing more. It's an F-15C replacement and that is it - end of story. $Ka-ching!
I lost the link to the Ralph Peters story .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Last US fighters shot down was in Vietnam not Korea.
The F22 was built to control the sky, that's it. Multi-role aircraft have never been as good as a dedicated aircraft in specific roles. IE, a CAS aircraft needs to be slower, able to loiter, and carry a lot of ordnance while a fighter needs to be sleek, fast, etc. B52s, A10s, etc will have a very hard time with total control of the air. The F15C does have a perfect record, but only been put up against third rate air forces. Last year in a joint excrese, the Indian air force using some newer Russian fighters mopped the floor with some of our F15 squadrons. It's nothing against the F15, it's a great fighter, but it's getting old. Other countries are designing/ building fighters that will beat it.
It costs money to be able the meet a threat, always has.
The F22 was built to control the sky, that's it. Multi-role aircraft have never been as good as a dedicated aircraft in specific roles. IE, a CAS aircraft needs to be slower, able to loiter, and carry a lot of ordnance while a fighter needs to be sleek, fast, etc. B52s, A10s, etc will have a very hard time with total control of the air. The F15C does have a perfect record, but only been put up against third rate air forces. Last year in a joint excrese, the Indian air force using some newer Russian fighters mopped the floor with some of our F15 squadrons. It's nothing against the F15, it's a great fighter, but it's getting old. Other countries are designing/ building fighters that will beat it.
It costs money to be able the meet a threat, always has.
You need to stay advanced in the design field even if you fall behind in production. Having a small force with a technological advanced system will allow you to check an enemy that is relying on weapons that can defeat or compete with a majority of forces you have. Having proven and tested designs will allow you to produce large quantities of advanced weapons that will work when needed. Falling behind will lead to disaster against an enemy who is building specifically to beat you and this is the problem that America has. Her enemies are building to fight her and she has so many enemies that have many different levels of technology that it is difficult to focus your tech efforts so you do the best you can and try to build against your most powerful enemy but it can leave you weak against others. For example Americas most powerful enemy is China and developing weapons to fight China has meant that America is not as able to fight insurgents in gritty house to house. In this situation it has allowed private companies to fill the technological gap with substandard equipment and the logic of "any armour is good armour" and really if I was on the ground and someone gave me armour that would stop 2/3 of the rds I would take it and be glad it was there.
Ok I know this thread has been dead and buried for a year now. But I would like to know what the best body armor, and how it functions is now.
Also what does the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps use now?
Also what kind of protection is used to proctect vital joints, like the knees and elbows.
Also what does the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps use now?
Also what kind of protection is used to proctect vital joints, like the knees and elbows.
As an aside - really, carrying on the debate that seems to have gone on in this thread - I believe that the F-22 is being phased out of production. Evidently, Kmar's argument won out.
Last edited by Spark (2009-04-09 02:35:00)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Wat?Spark wrote:
As an aside - really, carrying on the debate that seems to have gone on in this thread - I believe that the F-22 is being phased out of production. Evidently, Kmar's argument won out.
WHAT BODY ARMOR IS IN USE RIGHT NOW??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_O … tical_Vest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Tactical_Vest
---
I suppose it's these little things that are the real lifesavers, though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-arms … ive_insert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Tactical_Vest
---
I suppose it's these little things that are the real lifesavers, though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-arms … ive_insert
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-04-09 03:55:53)
They're doin it wrong.Mekstizzle wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_Outer_Tactical_Vest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Tactical_Vest
---
I suppose it's these little things that are the real lifesavers, though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-arms … ive_insert
inb4someonetakesmeseriously
Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-04-09 05:31:14)
^ he was only stopped because the coppers shot his knees.
Note: the body armour did not cover the knees.
Note: the body armour did not cover the knees.
I did and do.some_random_panda wrote:
inb4someonetakesmeseriously
I think the U.S. Military is still using Point Blank's InterceptorBradt3hleader wrote:
Wat?Spark wrote:
As an aside - really, carrying on the debate that seems to have gone on in this thread - I believe that the F-22 is being phased out of production. Evidently, Kmar's argument won out.
WHAT BODY ARMOR IS IN USE RIGHT NOW??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_O … tical_Vest <- What the Army uses now.loubot wrote:
I think the U.S. Military is still using Point Blank's InterceptorBradt3hleader wrote:
Wat?Spark wrote:
As an aside - really, carrying on the debate that seems to have gone on in this thread - I believe that the F-22 is being phased out of production. Evidently, Kmar's argument won out.
WHAT BODY ARMOR IS IN USE RIGHT NOW??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Tactical_Vest <- What the Marines uses now.
Edit: Oh yeah Mek already linked em.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2009-04-09 06:36:55)
There were a lot of other factors involved in that, not the least of which were the ROE that prevented realistic shots on our part.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Last US fighters shot down was in Vietnam not Korea.
The F22 was built to control the sky, that's it. Multi-role aircraft have never been as good as a dedicated aircraft in specific roles. IE, a CAS aircraft needs to be slower, able to loiter, and carry a lot of ordnance while a fighter needs to be sleek, fast, etc. B52s, A10s, etc will have a very hard time with total control of the air. The F15C does have a perfect record, but only been put up against third rate air forces. Last year in a joint excrese, the Indian air force using some newer Russian fighters mopped the floor with some of our F15 squadrons. It's nothing against the F15, it's a great fighter, but it's getting old. Other countries are designing/ building fighters that will beat it.
It costs money to be able the meet a threat, always has.
But there were issues...most of which have been or are being addressed.
The decision to kill the F-22 is not unexpected. I'm just hoping the decision doesn't come back to bite us all in the ass.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So he didM.O.A.B wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_O … tical_Vest <- What the Army uses now.loubot wrote:
I think the U.S. Military is still using Point Blank's InterceptorBradt3hleader wrote:
Wat?
WHAT BODY ARMOR IS IN USE RIGHT NOW??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Tactical_Vest <- What the Marines uses now.
Edit: Oh yeah Mek already linked em.
Protective Products International (PPI) manufactures the Marine's MTV but not sure about the Army's body armor.
UPDATE: ok PPI supplies both branches
Last edited by loubot (2009-04-09 09:57:33)
I'd say 100+ is enough to deal with anything that will arise over the next ...30 years. And besides if the US does ever go to war with a big country where the F-22 will actually be of use and need, it still won't get to to do anything as the nukes will start flying pretty quick.FEOS wrote:
There were a lot of other factors involved in that, not the least of which were the ROE that prevented realistic shots on our part.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Last US fighters shot down was in Vietnam not Korea.
The F22 was built to control the sky, that's it. Multi-role aircraft have never been as good as a dedicated aircraft in specific roles. IE, a CAS aircraft needs to be slower, able to loiter, and carry a lot of ordnance while a fighter needs to be sleek, fast, etc. B52s, A10s, etc will have a very hard time with total control of the air. The F15C does have a perfect record, but only been put up against third rate air forces. Last year in a joint excrese, the Indian air force using some newer Russian fighters mopped the floor with some of our F15 squadrons. It's nothing against the F15, it's a great fighter, but it's getting old. Other countries are designing/ building fighters that will beat it.
It costs money to be able the meet a threat, always has.
But there were issues...most of which have been or are being addressed.
The decision to kill the F-22 is not unexpected. I'm just hoping the decision doesn't come back to bite us all in the ass.
How do MTV and that US army stuff deal against 7.62 not in the plate area? I bet it penetrates. Also does that groin protection work against anything other then shrapnel. I wana join the Marines but I want my balls...xD
That's not at all accurate, Mek. 100+ isn't nearly enough to deal with a major force-on-force scenario with current and projected threats. Particularly when your next best option is a 40-odd year old fighter (F-15).Mekstizzle wrote:
I'd say 100+ is enough to deal with anything that will arise over the next ...30 years. And besides if the US does ever go to war with a big country where the F-22 will actually be of use and need, it still won't get to to do anything as the nukes will start flying pretty quick.FEOS wrote:
There were a lot of other factors involved in that, not the least of which were the ROE that prevented realistic shots on our part.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Last US fighters shot down was in Vietnam not Korea.
The F22 was built to control the sky, that's it. Multi-role aircraft have never been as good as a dedicated aircraft in specific roles. IE, a CAS aircraft needs to be slower, able to loiter, and carry a lot of ordnance while a fighter needs to be sleek, fast, etc. B52s, A10s, etc will have a very hard time with total control of the air. The F15C does have a perfect record, but only been put up against third rate air forces. Last year in a joint excrese, the Indian air force using some newer Russian fighters mopped the floor with some of our F15 squadrons. It's nothing against the F15, it's a great fighter, but it's getting old. Other countries are designing/ building fighters that will beat it.
It costs money to be able the meet a threat, always has.
But there were issues...most of which have been or are being addressed.
The decision to kill the F-22 is not unexpected. I'm just hoping the decision doesn't come back to bite us all in the ass.
Nukes wouldn't fly except in a national survival scenario...which isn't projected for any of the projected fights in the future.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The rest of the vest is good against anything up to pistol rounds. It will not stop a round from an AK or SVD without the plates. There is always a trade-off between protection and mobility. That was the point of Dragon Skin--flexability...only it failed against shots from angles.
The last US fighter shot down by another plane was in Vietnam, IIRC.
We have lost several aircraft to ground-based systems. That is a large part of the attractiveness of stealth technology. Air defense systems have greatly limited abilities for tracking LO aircraft vs. a gen 4 fighter.
The last US fighter shot down by another plane was in Vietnam, IIRC.
We have lost several aircraft to ground-based systems. That is a large part of the attractiveness of stealth technology. Air defense systems have greatly limited abilities for tracking LO aircraft vs. a gen 4 fighter.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-04-09 12:51:00)
good. I dont like that dragon skin shit. Ive heard too many negatives and not enough positives.
Fighting the insurgents/ al quida/ taliban with conventional weapons is pretty tough when certain targets are off limits ROE. Just like Vietnam, can't bomb pakistan just like we couldn't bomb China. And look at Kmarion's video of the Puff the C-130, can't hit the mosques etc etc. so in the video even with being the only plane in the sky that one dude got away.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
How is the F22 useless? As good as the F15 is we need to upgrade to the next generation. Just because we are fighting a force with no air force now doesn't mean we won't in the next few years, by then it's too late to develop a new aircraft.
It it expensive? yes. But it is also unmatched by any other fighter in the world.
If we could bomb anyone anywhere we could use the entire muslim world against Al Quida, all we would have to do is completely flatten the holiest sites in the world. You attack on 9/11, the temple mount mosque gets flattened. You trigger a nuclear dirty bomb and we vaporized the black rock at Meca. etc etc. not even a loss of life, announce ahead of time what you are going to do so they can turn in the guilty people and if they don't warn, them to clear out and then do it. A form of collective punishment. Its a crazy idea but I think its the only way high tech aircraft can play a role and its less crazy that putting boots in the moutains of Afganistan.
Anyway I saw the future weapons episode with those vests, It looked like one use ceramics, a plate works once and then it needs to be replaced.
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-04-09 13:03:46)
ROE changes quickly. Ive witnessed 500 lbs bombs being dropped on a mosque that was holding at least a platoons worth of insurgents. Ive cordoned areas where special forces were required to do raids on mosques
Good enough, at least the job is getting done. Pretty tough to do anything if there is sanctuary given, then its a game of tag with safe zones.Man With No Name wrote:
ROE changes quickly. Ive witnessed 500 lbs bombs being dropped on a mosque that was holding at least a platoons worth of insurgents. Ive cordoned areas where special forces were required to do raids on mosques
The real problem though, is the radical teaching and inculcation of the young ala 11 year old suicide bombers. and its pretty tough to stop ideas with an F22 especially when those ideas are wrapped in religous rights. I wonder what a threat to Meca would do to get less radical muslims to turn on radical leaders and teachers.
Then the enemies leave and booby trap the place so when the special forces come in and it all comes down it's the US's fault of course.Man With No Name wrote:
ROE changes quickly. Ive witnessed 500 lbs bombs being dropped on a mosque that was holding at least a platoons worth of insurgents. Ive cordoned areas where special forces were required to do raids on mosques
Fucking Muj. I just have them and all those enemies anywhere they may be. War has always been complicated with stupid rules. Another thing I hate is us not being able to interrogate enemies "Properly", because offering them a spot in that Cuban Hotel (gitmo) isn't going to make them confess.
Like I hate the fu**ing japs in WW2 who tortuered Americans. Fuck them, they deserved the whole island nuked. I have nothing against this generation of Japanese. Just that bunch of loons in WW2.
Anywho what exactly is the ROE for attacking "Holy" places.
ROE during my deployment changed. At first we couldnt do anything to them, even if we knew AIF was there. That changed though, because they kept using mosques.
did a lot of raids here, at least three.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hanifa_Mosque
One time our commader described the place as "the center for evil" in a briefing because of all the insurgent activity and weapons we would find inside. Right across the street from an amusement park.
did a lot of raids here, at least three.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hanifa_Mosque
One time our commader described the place as "the center for evil" in a briefing because of all the insurgent activity and weapons we would find inside. Right across the street from an amusement park.
Ok well a raid inside is very risky. Booby traps and all. I'm sure you know anyway.Man With No Name wrote:
ROE during my deployment changed. At first we couldnt do anything to them, even if we knew AIF was there. That changed though, because they kept using mosques.
did a lot of raids here, at least three.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hanifa_Mosque
One time our commader described the place as "the center for evil" in a briefing because of all the insurgent activity and weapons we would find inside. Right across the street from an amusement park.
Wouldn't it be safer to drop a 2000lb JDAM ?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- US Department of Justice Dumps Dragon Skin Body Armor