Last edited by steelie34 (2008-03-11 15:59:01)
RaptorPoseidon wrote:
Aww. I loved the F-117! One of my favorite looking planes.
What'll take it's place?
Meh. I never really liked the Raptor. Dunno why.Stingray24 wrote:
Article said: "The F-117 is being replaced by the F-22 Raptor, which also has stealth technology."
um, no. the f15 is old. we don't make anymore. its falling apart in the sky. we need new planes.N00bkilla55404 wrote:
Raptor=massive Cock substitute made to waste money because paranoid american generals thought they needed to make america OMGSCARY when infact the F15 was already far superior to every other jet fighter in history. The F35 is basically the same, except it makes other countries kiss ass to have them exported over.
I think the crashes were from it's earlier periods. The plane's airframe isn't all that stable and without relatively modern computer support for the pilot, it's pretty easy to crash.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Why retire a plane thats never been shot down? Or has it? It said 7 have crashed but that doesn't sound like its been shot down.
Not the newest models.Stingray24 wrote:
The F-15 is 7 years older than me and I'm 28 ...
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?
As i stated earlier...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?
One was shot down over Kosovo in 1999 by an SA-2 or SA-3.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Why retire a plane thats never been shot down? Or has it? It said 7 have crashed but that doesn't sound like its been shot down.
that would be interesting.As for the Raptor's necessity, it is needed. I wrote a paper on it, which I'll post if you wish.
Last edited by [pt] KEIOS (2008-03-11 17:47:31)
Yeah, I'm glad that they're doing this too. You never know when these babies could come in handy again.Reciprocity wrote:
At least they're being mothballed and not permanantly disabled/destroyed. We may need them someday.
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.nukchebi0 wrote:
One was shot down over Kosovo in 1999 by an SA-2 or SA-3.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Why retire a plane thats never been shot down? Or has it? It said 7 have crashed but that doesn't sound like its been shot down.
As for the Raptor's necessity, it is needed. I wrote a paper on it, which I'll post if you wish.
It was probably the SU30, the first model that used thrust vectoring if i'm not mistaken.mudder wrote:
I was at the first official public showing of the aircraft. Dayton airshow during Gulf1. Also at that show the Russian unveiled an SUxx "I forgot which one" It had this brand new tech called vector control! Anyway back then it was new to the public. Damn thing "hovered" for a few seconds after a loop d loop. My father and I were blown away.
Last edited by N00bkilla55404 (2008-03-11 21:10:08)
I'll post my paper in a bit. To answer your second point, I'm certain it was the Su27, since the Su30 was built off the Su27.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.nukchebi0 wrote:
One was shot down over Kosovo in 1999 by an SA-2 or SA-3.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Why retire a plane thats never been shot down? Or has it? It said 7 have crashed but that doesn't sound like its been shot down.
As for the Raptor's necessity, it is needed. I wrote a paper on it, which I'll post if you wish.It was probably the SU30, the first model that used thrust vectoring if i'm not mistaken.mudder wrote:
I was at the first official public showing of the aircraft. Dayton airshow during Gulf1. Also at that show the Russian unveiled an SUxx "I forgot which one" It had this brand new tech called vector control! Anyway back then it was new to the public. Damn thing "hovered" for a few seconds after a loop d loop. My father and I were blown away.