Sportbike Racing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It was all over the news :blush:; sorry all taxpayers, we just crashed the 1st $273 million F-22 Aircraft :Wow1:!!!!!!!!


Pilot is safe and in stable condition :waytogo:. One witness i talked to said she saw it on fire :flame: before it went below the buildings and blew up. It crashed about 100 yards north of the runway, by the End of runway inspection area. THERE is NO building within about a 1/4 mile of where it went down! No one else was hurt.
I was told he was taking off; think he tried to catch the barrier cable and hit it too fast. It's pretty crazy, the whole aircraft looked intact (stuck in the dirt :tongue:)!!!!!! Indicating, a slow speed/ angle of crash. I saw alot of trucks and such NOT around the main fuselage, but at another area just south of the crash. P.S. I saw all of this NOT from the F/L :808876-nono:!!!
Just wanted to let everyone know what happened if they didn't hear and that all are safe!
Great job egress shop :bow:! Thrust you can trust :waytogo:!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
Glad to hear the pilot is okay :waytogo:

But I still don't understand why we need that aircraft. What mission does it perform that the F/A-18 and others can't? How many Humvees could we armor for $273 million? All of them, probably.

But then, Congress and the President must serve their constituents (i.e. defense contractors).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
Actually, most of the navy pilots down here are sad to see the F-14 go. The F/A-18 doesn't do as well air-to-air as the F-14 does. One of the problems is that people would rather have one aircraft do it all well, than multiple aircraft that are the absolute best at their mission.

Just my opinion anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
yotsko said:
Actually, most of the navy pilots down here are sad to see the F-14 go. The F/A-18 doesn't do as well air-to-air as the F-14 does. One of the problems is that people would rather have one aircraft do it all well, than multiple aircraft that are the absolute best at their mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a taxpayer I count myself among those who would prefer one aircraft that does a lot of things well. Think about the countries in the world that we are likely to wage war against, and then think about the aircraft they have. Is the F/A-18 really so inadequate? How important are manned aircraft given our increasing reliance on cruise missiles?

Granted, I am probably biased because I spent four years working on F/A-18s. However, if pilots are going to miss the F-14 they are probably the only ones. They take up too much flight deck space, they're highly maintenance intensive, and they suck down the fuel. Ultimately, readiness is increased and money is saved if you have five or six F/A-18 squadrons on the ship rather than 2 F/A-18 squadrons, 2 F-14 squadrons, and an A-6 squadron or two. Training is more efficient, AIMD doesn't have to maintain so many different kinds of engines, etc.

I know there are those who think we should be on the bleeding edge of performance in all aspects, esp. fighter jocks pretending to be Goose and Maverick. But IMO efficiency brings readiness. It's a win-win situation. I don't see how the F-22 improves readiness. All it seems to do is eat up a lot of my money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,404 Posts
I agree with the downsizing force....with less aircraft we have a harder time covering more area (as you all know) which sucks and we need fighters!!!....but...the F-22 is an amazing aircraft. Our current fighters are well matched by other countries, and in the hands of well trained pilots, some of them will even beat us in the air. Our fighters are getting old and we need to keep our air superiority. The F-22 (and F-35) will do this. the 22 kills everything we have when dogfighting hands down. And Im sure it will be adapted for ground attack down the road. Why not use such an awesome aircraft for this role.

here are some great words by a friend of mine who flies the F-15.....

......Dude, I've fought the 22. It's not even close. The Raptor can take out as many things as it has missles. NOTHING can touch that thing.

I've fought everything from Jaguars, Harriers, Tornados, MiGs, F-4's, Hornets, Vipers, Tom-Grape's, Viggen's, Grippen's, Mirage's, you name it. The Eagle is worlds above all of them. The difference between an Eagle and a 22 is greater than the difference between an F-4 and an Eagle. And that's saying something!!! The Raptor (when they get all the kinks worked out) will be hands down king of the sky......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,163 Posts
when it comes to taxpayer dollars, I think people should be more concerned with a multi billion dollar war that they were sold on lies. cheap airplanes are expensive, great airplanes are more so.

good to hear the pilot is doing well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,608 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
And Im sure it will be adapted for ground attack down the road.

[/ QUOTE ] Already was a few years ago , its actually designated as the F/A-22 .
And why do we need something like this , to keep the threat up ,IMO. Dont you think many countries know we can and will dominate them if they try something stupid . Also the 22 is a stealth aircraft , the piplot isnt in as much danger flying it compaired to the 15 16 18 . They cant shoot down what they cant see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
[ QUOTE ]
terrasmak said:
[ QUOTE ]
And Im sure it will be adapted for ground attack down the road.

[/ QUOTE ] Already was a few years ago , its actually designated as the F/A-22 .
And why do we need something like this , to keep the threat up ,IMO. Dont you think many countries know we can and will dominate them if they try something stupid . Also the 22 is a stealth aircraft , the piplot isnt in as much danger flying it compaired to the 15 16 18 . They cant shoot down what they cant see.

[/ QUOTE ]


IMO of an aircraft mechanic/ weapons loader; certified 7 level Craftsman who has worked on B-1b bombers/ 5 yrs F-16s, and now A-10s and been around the world.
The specific aircraft that are intented for a specific mission whether that be air to mud or air to air are better. For example, Why the hell did they put a 20mm gatling gun in the F-22????? Now that makes no sense :flame: :808993-banghead:!It'll will never get used and still have to be maintained. :flame: If your that damn close, call in help or get your arse outta there. Now on the role of this jet being able to bomb; it only makes sense, but it won't be able to support our troops; or the F-35 for that matter; as say an old A-10 with a crap load of (11 stations for munitions) Armor Piercing 30 mm ammo. The older jets were designed to do one thing, and do it well. The last I hear was the A-10 was going to be taken up by the army if we got rid of them. Add to the fact that the F-35 will be a poser for air support since it won't be able to hold as much weapons or linger in the area or have a big arse gun to shoot stuff with aka buildings, tanks, etc.
I too have heard that the F-22 is amazing. It's like ridding a stock 92 FZR1000 up against a new GSXR-1000. Bother were great, but in the end the new kid just rocks!

As for those who don't know the Isrealis in F-15 C/D's just handed out elite F-15 E models there butts so bad that Nellis is in the buildup of an F-15 aggressor squadron! Older jets with better tactics handing a "better trained" and newer aircraft our elite pilots their arse?!!

Here's a thought! Scrap the F-35 idear since it's about 5 years from coming out anywho and make us a new updated stealth hog :waytogo:! Now that would be bad arse :bow:!! It keeps bringing pilots home no matter what! Just a thought
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,714 Posts
I actually work with the FA/22's at Nellis. We don't shoot the gun EVER, we just started flying munitions. I think the F-15 is a much better jet. :smirk: Don't get me wrong I love working with the FA/22, it's been a great experience working with a brand new aircraft and it is horrible that one went down. I know the pilot and he is a cool guy. A lot of my friends were on the flight line when it happened and witnessed the whole tihng. A fire truck driving to the scene tipped over in base housing and started on fire. It was a very tragic day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
The specific aircraft that are intented for a specific mission whether that be air to mud or air to air are better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously no aircraft can serve every role. We will always have a need for specialized combat aircraft like the A-10, Cobras, C130 gunships, etc. However, I think the need for a specialized "air superiority" fighter is just not there any more. We had "air superiority" over Iraq for 12 years and what good did it do us? Saddam still controlled the ground.

IMHO the bulk of our tactical air force should be stike aircraft: planes that can intercept enemy aircraft and/or bomb a ground target on the same sortie. The other large portion of the air force should be air support for ground forces. Air superiority fighters are an anachronism. If an enemy actually has a powerful air force (that really narrows it down) why waste planes and men in dog fights? Let them chase our cruise missiles instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,608 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
Isrealis in F-15 C/D's just handed out elite F-15 E models there butts

[/ QUOTE ]Of course they will , the E model is duel role but mostly air to ground ,the C and D are the air to air versions. The I model is what the Isralis actually fly is basically a scripped but still beafed up e model with better motors , the use the GE 129 , while we use the PW220 , or PW229 in E models
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
Why the hell did they put a 20mm gatling gun in the F-22????? Now that makes no sense :flame: :808993-banghead:!It'll will never get used and still have to be maintained. :flame: If your that damn close, call in help or get your arse outta there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the answer to that question is spelled V-i-e-t-n-a-m. You see what happened when they took the cannons of the F-4? Granted it is 30 years later, but the Air Force still has too big of a black eye to not put a cannon on a fighter. My two cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
[ QUOTE ]
homeless_cq said:
[ QUOTE ]
Why the hell did they put a 20mm gatling gun in the F-22????? Now that makes no sense :flame: :808993-banghead:!It'll will never get used and still have to be maintained. :flame: If your that damn close, call in help or get your arse outta there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the answer to that question is spelled V-i-e-t-n-a-m. You see what happened when they took the cannons of the F-4? Granted it is 30 years later, but the Air Force still has too big of a black eye to not put a cannon on a fighter. My two cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point; but welcome back to the year 2005 (in 5 days) :rolling:!!! The F-22 from what I understand is an AIR SUPERIORITY Fighter :Wow1:; not an F-4 flying around Nam at 2000 ft shooting HARM (High-speed Anti Radiaion Missiles) at Sam/ radar sights :bow:.

I'll related this to waxing a bike everyday and rebuilding it from scratch every 18 months only to have it sit outside and look good :bird:. Don't even start it up, just know that it'll run if it has to :flame:. AND THIS IS YOUR TAXPAYERS MONEY AT WORK :808908-wtf:!!! And my hard work for nothing; it's not like we don't have anything else to do, right :kaboom:?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,163 Posts
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
wingswheels said:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew wings would back me up on this. Originally, the F-4 WAS an air superiority fighter, hence the F. The pilots became dependant on missles and the USAF, looking to the future took the cannon off. And the F-4s got spanked by Migs for awhile until they put the gun back on, the F-4b I believe. The cannon is probably one of the cheapest and easiest to maintain parts of the plan too....Terrasmak--little help???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,181 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
The cannon is probably one of the cheapest and easiest to maintain parts of the plan too....

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. A few cannon rounds are surely cheaper than any missile. However the cannon and its ammo is quite heavy. You can use aluminum, titanium, and carbon fiber to lighten most components of the aircraft, but 20mm cannon rounds are always going to be heavy. As a result, modern tactical aircraft typically carry only 500-700 rounds, which is enough for about 15-20 seconds of continuous firing and then you are out. But that's plenty, because the 20mm cannon is really a last resort weapon. Ideally you shoot the enemy down with missiles from a great distance.

But I still think that in this day and age there is not much need for a lot of dedicated air superiority fighters. First pound the enemy with unmanned cruise missiles, and then only when their air force and infrastructure are crippled do you send in the manned strike planes, bombers, and ground-support planes.

Of course, my opinion would be different if our military were purely defensive, but it isn't. Air superiority fighters are pretty useful for air defense, esp. in the USA where our interstate highway system provides a virtually unlimited supply of airfields. But our leadership seems more interested in empire building, and for that we really need A- and F/A- planes.
 
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
Top