Last edited by N00bkilla55404 (2008-03-11 21:22:51)
New planes means we can laugh at other countries that have not so new planes but probably have better pilots.cowami wrote:
gotta flex that military-industrial complex's penisN00bkilla55404 wrote:
The f22 is still a waste. No other country is developing a stealth aircraft any further than blueprints and concepts, and why would you need a new fighter if there hasnt been A2A fighting in over a decade?
Last edited by Lynx14 (2008-03-11 22:48:58)
Yes, the AMD part is dumbed down for everyone on here. But my English teacher doesn't have the innate knowledge of computers everyone here does.Me, in my essay wrote:
The basic tenet of anti-F-22 rhetoric is the perceived lack of need for it. The standard argument here entails the following: the U.S. doesn’t fight conventional wars anymore, and since the F-22 was designed for air superiority against a conventional air force, the F-22 isn’t needed. This argument is popular and oft-repeated, but terribly wrong. Neglecting to purchase the F-22 would be a decision, one that would leave us with no good contingency plan should our vision of a peaceful international community fail to materialize. If we end up being forced to attack another country that is armed with F-15 equivalent or greater fighters, such as China or India, would we want to be throwing older aircraft that could be shot down against them, or ones that can operate with impunity? If we have developed something better, sending an F-15 into a fight it will eventually lose while endangering the life of a pilot unnecessarily and decreasing our ability to influence the ground conflict favorably is not only stupid; it is also borderline immoral. While the U.S. is fighting guerilla wars now, the need for a dominant air force has not vanished, because one cannot predict the future.
Not purchasing the F-22 would be, on a greater scale, reminiscent of the saga of the F-4 in Vietnam. The early models of the F-4 were designed without a gun; missiles were, after all, the only thing needed for dog fighting in that day. This was a perfect way to save on production and maintenance costs, since guns were heavy and complex pieces of machinery that required constant care. This did effectively save money, but had the consequence of denying many F-4 pilots kills after they had expended their unreliable and ineffective missiles. This in turn left North Vietnamese pilots and planes alive to threaten them on another day. By failing to provide a backup plan should missiles prove less effective than in theory, the government ended up causing the losses of aircraft and lives that would otherwise have been spared. Besides losing people, this also had the effect of increasing costs, since every lost fighter needed to be replaced at a much greater value than would have been saved repairing a gun.
No other airplane has the F-22’s performance capability. Not practically, and not theoretically. Failing to acquire the plane would signify a lack of competition with the militaries of other nations. A lack of competing while having a lead will result in stagnation and eventual loss of the lead. In 2004, the computer processor manufacturer AMD developed a superior chip, and stayed with it, resting on the laurels of market share and profit. Meanwhile, their competitor was busily researching and developing new architectures, which in 2006 surpassed AMD’s designs and have not relinquished the lead. A similar philosophy concerning fighter design will yield similar results. The formerly superior AMD chip can be seen as the F-15, which will beat all current models, but will fail against the newest in development and eventually leave those who depend on it in a much worse position. In a competitive race, it is imperative you never rest in improving, or you will fall behind.
While the enemy which caused the creation of the F-22 is receding in the annals of history, the F-22 is still vitally important to the United States defense. It allows us to have a virtually invulnerable air force, and ensures the maximum protection for our ground forces should a conventional war ever arise. Although our budget is tight and could use the reduction in military spending, it would be horrifically imprudent and short-sighted to cancel the acquisition of the F-22. Paying 24 billion dollars to ensure the United States remain the United States is a judicious long term investment that should be made.
Yes, it's an expensive jet, but the price per jet is only that high if you include all the R&D costs. That artificially inflates it, as much of the Raptor R&D also fed the F-35 development. So let's just look at the requirement for the capability.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Please, tell me why The Air Force feels they need to spend 200 million apeice on what is plain overkill? Why isnt the F15 good enough? It's a plane that is still superior to anything else that has been made and probably will ever be made for the next decade or 2. What about the mass produced F18 and its super hornet upgrade? It can hold its own against any opposing fighter, the fact it is carrier-borne means it can be deployed anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. And lets not forget the pilots are highly trained compared to non-NATO/EU countries, which is enough to render a country's airpower near-unbeatable. Remember korea; The F86 held a 10:1 kill ratio against what was mostly a superior and numerically equal Mig15 because the veteran US pilots faced Korean rookies who only just got out of flight school.
Most would disagree that the F18 is superior to anything else. The SU30 is recognized as being far superior in most ways including price. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=93839noobkilla wrote:
Please, tell me why The Air Force feels they need to spend 200 million apeice on what is plain overkill? Why isnt the F15 good enough? It's a plane that is still superior to anything else that has been made and probably will ever be made for the next decade or 2. What about the mass produced F18 and its super hornet upgrade? It can hold its own against any opposing fighter
I never said the F18 was superior, only it can hold its own against most modern fighters. Would i really be that biased on a countries airpower that isnt my own?Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Most would disagree that the F18 is superior to anything else. The SU30 is recognized as being far superior in most ways including price. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=93839noobkilla wrote:
Please, tell me why The Air Force feels they need to spend 200 million apeice on what is plain overkill? Why isnt the F15 good enough? It's a plane that is still superior to anything else that has been made and probably will ever be made for the next decade or 2. What about the mass produced F18 and its super hornet upgrade? It can hold its own against any opposing fighter
The F-15 can also land with one wing.Stingray24 wrote:
The F-15 is 7 years older than me and I'm 28 ...
Oh, the A-10 has enough character to make up for it.thepilot91 wrote:
I really liked that plane ....theres no other with such caracter
Was a bit crap tbh. Got shot down by Kosovans.M.O.A.B wrote:
I like the Nighthawk
everything lands, wings or not.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The F-15 can also land with one wing.Stingray24 wrote:
The F-15 is 7 years older than me and I'm 28 ...
Safely.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
everything lands, wings or not.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The F-15 can also land with one wing.Stingray24 wrote:
The F-15 is 7 years older than me and I'm 28 ...
tell it like it is brotherGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
everything lands, wings or not.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The F-15 can also land with one wing.Stingray24 wrote:
The F-15 is 7 years older than me and I'm 28 ...
Everything when Im running.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what do you have against gravity?
Shot down once in it's entire lifetime is bad?Bertster7 wrote:
Was a bit crap tbh. Got shot down by Kosovans.M.O.A.B wrote:
I like the Nighthawk
Can't dogfight nearly as well.
As if the stealth has no role in this?N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Can't dogfight nearly as well.
/suggestion
And im not so much against the F22 as i am against the unnecessary cost that is put into the stealth. The cost would probably be cut in half and its unlikely there would be any effect in A2A performance. Its just too early for such an excessive addition; it probably wont even be needed as the F22 detects its enemies and destroys them much earlier than any other and most AA would be destroyed in the opening hours.