The F-22 Raptor is Now Operational

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013572

Team America, Fuck Yeah!

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/thumbnails/051214-F-2295B-013.jpg

http://www.f22-raptor.com/images/cool3.jpg

http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/gallery/lr/01.jpg

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/5111/image0048dd.jpg

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/1576/image0024qs.jpg

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/1103/image0012wd.jpg

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/6002/image0031en.jpg

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/images/raptor6.jpg

[boutons_]

USA ready for "Independence Day". Jeff Goldblum is cheaper.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Thanks for the insight croutons.

This is a bad ass plane, now maybe the people who worried about our little mock skirmishes with the Indian Air Force a couple of months ago with our dated F16s will STFU.

[Brodels]

What does it do?

[Rubberducky]

Ace Combat 4 & 5, good times. ;)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It looks like any other plane to me.

Where is the MannyIsGod to give us complete specs and costs and all other crucial info

Does it even reach Mach 10?
Cloaking device?
Remote Control capability?
HEM?

[hendrix]

Now you're selling those good old F-15 Eagles and that's an interesting match up.
If there are no threats, CIA and other agencies create them for you (actually for the military industrial complex). It's all about money, not security.

[chode_regulator]

the mv22 osprey is about 10 billion times better than the f22.
check it out.

[MannyIsGod]

The F22 is a bad ass plane. It is pretty damn stealthy, has the ability to go supersonic without going to burner, and has thrust vectoring which make it pretty sweet in a dog fight.

I'm glad the air force has these planes now.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

mannyisgod does not supply the info that he used to i said

[Marklar MM]

Wikipedia says that each Raptor costs 7x more than the next highest priced fighter.

As Manny has said, it is a stealth fighter. It can supercruise at 1.5 mach without afterburner, it is very maneuverable, a high thrust:weight ratio, and has internal weaponry.


General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.9 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m)
Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.1 m)
Wing area: 840 ft² 78.04 m²
Empty: 31,670 lb (14,365 kg)
Loaded: 60,000 lb (27,216 kg)
Maximum takeoff: 80,000 lb (36,500 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans, 35,000+ lbf (156 kN) thrust each
[edit]
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0+ (1,300+ Knots) (USAF and Lockheed) 2.42+ (1,600+ MPH) (Paul Metz, chief test pilot)
Cruising Speed: Mach 1.5+ (USAF [7]), 1.72 (Lockheed [8])
Range: about 2000 miles (3218 km) - (other estimates suggest up to 5000 - 6000 km, most likely using drop tanks or perhaps inflight refuelling)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (18,288 m)
Rate of climb: ft/min ( m/min) - presently not published
Wing loading: 96 lb/ft² (467 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.27
[edit]
Armament
Gun: 1× M61A2 Vulcan 20 mm Gatling gun with 480 rounds
Missiles: 6× AIM-120C AMRAAM, 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder - although there are many possible configurations - another one is 4x AIM - 9 Sidewinders in ventral bays, and 4x AIM-120 AMRAAM's in side bays (or 6x AIM-120)
Bombs: 2× 1000 lb JDAM
Estimated that internal bays can carry about 10, 000 kg worth of bombs, and/or missiles.
4 external hardpoints can be fitted to carry weapons or fuel tanks, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,270 kg), albeit at the expense of stealth.
Armaments are still largely classified by the U.S. government.

[boutons_]

Tons of Raptors would have made no difference in Iraq.
Are they being rushed to Iraq now that they are available?

What was missing in the Repub Iraq war was enough ground troops to clear AND hold enough of Iraq so public security could allow reconstruction.

The terror war we're fighting now doesn't have an enemy with fixed installations to bomb, and fighter jets to dogfight with. The stealth of suicide bombers and IEDs are much more effective against the US than Raptors are against the terrorists, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

The solution to the war on terror is not $100M Raptors.

[MannyIsGod]

Regardless, in a conflict it is nessecary and will be nessecary to have planes like the F22. We can't keep the 15, 16 and 18 around forever. Especially when old soviet designs are propogating very quickly. A smaller amount of 22s is nessecary to do the job of more 15s, so while it costs more it will not take as many planes to do the job.

[clubalien]

b-2 spirit is still my fav plane
but santa didn't leave one for christmas for me

[Nbadan]

Some interesting QUESTIONS and answers on the F22 fighter on this web site (http://www.f22fighter.com/history.htm)


Prior to its selection as winner of what was then known as the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition, the F-22 team conducted a 54-month demonstration/ validation (dem/val) program. The effort involved the design, construction and flight testing of two YF-22 prototype aircraft. Two prototype engines, the Pratt & Whitney YF119 and General Electric YF120, also were developed and tested during the program. The dem/val program was completed in December 1990.

Much of that work was performed at Boeing in Seattle, Lockheed (now known as Lockheed Martin) facilities in Burbank, Calif., and at General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas, facilities (now known as Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems). The prototypes were assembled in Lockheed's Palmdale, Calif., facility and made their maiden flight from there. Since that time Lockheed's program management and aircraft assembly operations have moved to Marietta, Ga., for the EMD and production phases.

A $9.55 billion contract for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) of the F-22 was awarded to the industry team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin in August 1991. Contract changes since then have elevated the contract value to approximately $11 billion. Under terms of the contract, the F-22 team will complete the design of the aircraft, produce production tooling for the program, and build and test nine flightworthy and two ground-test aircraft.

In February 1995, the Air Force customer approved the final design of the F-22 air vehicle and confirmed that the program was ready to proceed to fabrication and assembly. The Air Force plans to procure 339 F-22s, and production is scheduled to run through 2013.

[RandomGuy]

From what I understand of the f22, it was meant to be a "one size fits all" type of craft that means that it was not a "specialist" type of craft meant for certain roles, but rather a good general purpose type of plane that is good at everything but not great at any one particular role.

Meaning:

Simplified logistics and training.

Pay a bit more up front perhaps for the tech, but less in the back end as you only have one type of craft to train on, repair, and supply.

(I dimly remember this bit, as it may be from another strategic debate about the way our air power should be structured and not from this specific plane)

I did however find this interesting bit:


....(snip)The Range Issue

Heading the list is range--or the supposed lack of it. Geographic access to the battlespace in major regional conflicts emerged as a possible Achilles' heel for the fighter force. The worry has been that either military attacks by the enemy or political constraints from friends could deprive US fighters of bases from which to launch operations. A 1993 Rand study observed that the "greater the combat range of an aircraft, the more likely it is to find a suitable beddown base in any theater."

As the US drifted away from Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf allies, the question of access loomed even larger. Raids such as Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998 raised new dilemmas with allies reluctant to grant use of in-theater bases for new offensive strikes. USAF heavy bombers, Navy aircraft carriers, and long land-based fighter missions helped take up the slack.

Critical claims about fighter range deserve far closer scrutiny than they have so far received. It is axiomatic that no combat aircraft can ever have too much range. The new fighter designs make this abundantly clear. The Navy F/A-18E/F multirole Super Hornet was designed with about 25 percent more range than extant Navy fighters. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will more than double the unrefueled combat radius of the fighters that it replaces. The F-22 will triple the combat radius of current fighters.

However, actual combat radius depends on a whole host of variables, ranging from altitude to the amount of ordnance carried and the attack profile.

Today, virtually no combat missions take place without air refueling. In Operation Allied Force, the crowding of in-theater bases compelled Air Force F-15Es to fly seven-hour missions from RAF Lakenheath in England to targets in the former Yugoslavia, but their missions were successful. Moreover, even bombers need prestrike and poststrike refueling. B-2s leaving the target area over Serbia were thirsty for fuel until they met their tankers in the Mediterranean.

The debate about the combat utility of fighters boils down to a narrow band of scenarios where basing concerns and extreme inland ranges stretch out the combat radius and relatively light air defenses take attrition out of the equation. Afghanistan after the first few days was just such a scenario.

Operation Enduring Freedom presented a serious access challenge. In-theater bases were few and not particularly close to the action. Land-based and carrier-based strike fighters had to use multiple air refuelings from Air Force tankers to get enough range. The extreme distance to the target area limited the fighters' time on station.

Bombers operating from Diego Garcia faced no such constraints, loitering for hours at a stretch to provide on-call air strikes. The success of the bombers--which accounted for more than 70 percent of all of the ordnance dropped during the war--led some to question whether fighters would ever be needed again. "Restart the B-52 assembly line," sneered Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and pundit. "We don't need extravagantly priced dogfighting machines."

The focus on range left out the other side of the coin of anti-access scenarios: air defenses....(snip)


http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2002/0702fighter.asp

[RandomGuy]

Putting the brakes on US fighter modernization is false economy and discards the nation's key asymmetric advantage. The fighters strengthen US air and space power; new ones are needed to help the US stay ahead of emerging capabilities. Already, advanced Russian SAMs can be found in many countries. They are being marketed to many others.

Ensuring that US aircraft can get into a target area and perform their missions--now and in the future--ultimately comes down to whether the fighters can be tasked to take on the total threat of adversary aircraft and surface-to-air missiles. The F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are specifically designed to unravel integrated air defenses. Standoff cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile augment air dominance--but TLAMs, too, are vulnerable. One TLAM flying a preplanned route was shot down by anti-aircraft fire during the Gulf War.

(from the same article)

Now that I think about it, the "one size fits all thing" was for the JSF, not the raptor. My bad.

I do agree with the sentiments above. Our current crop of fighters can only be upgraded so far. We do not always have the luxury of being able to see 25 years into the future to see who we will need to be fighting, if at all.

[Dos]

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/images/raptor6.jpg I hope it has the NY Times in it's sights... heh

[Slomo]

Isn't it also supposed to exist in a version with vertical take off? Or am I confusing it for some other plane?

[Phenomanul]

The F22 is a bad ass plane. It is pretty damn stealthy, has the ability to go supersonic without going to burner, and has thrust vectoring which make it pretty sweet in a dog fight.

I'm glad the air force has these planes now.


Plus it's really good in Combat Video Games....

[Marklar MM]

Isn't it also supposed to exist in a version with vertical take off? Or am I confusing it for some other plane?

That is the Harrier you are thinking of.

[clubalien]

keep in mind wikipedida says that the stealth technology on this fighter isn't good.

personally with russia and china figureing out our stealth technolgy and how to detect planes. I think we better have something else up our sleeve in blackprojects

[clubalien]

Isn't it also supposed to exist in a version with vertical take off? Or am I confusing it for some other plane?

I knwo this becuase wiki says so and on KLRN they once had a story on the
plane X or soemthing which was the bidding buy lockhead boeing and soemone else for the contract

ended up boeing bought out the company that failed. or something. anyways the JSF is the vertial lauching plane

[Notorious H.O.P.]

That is the Harrier you are thinking of.

I belive Slomo is referring to the Joint Strike Fighter. I seem to recall a documentary regarding competing defense contractors to produce a vertical launch aircraft that would be used by multiple military branches.

As is typical with military decisions, it is believed that they went with the lesser of the two options.

In any case, as was referred to by another poster, the consolidation will lead to savings from a logistical standpoint. This will come from training and maintenance although at seven times the price, it will be hard to make up too much savings.

[chode_regulator]

just about everyone here who has posted so far is a moron.
first off the osprey owns the f22. lol.
secondly and all the way to whatever number my points end in. i ahve seen the f22 up close and personal. that thing is badass. it is designed for all the services, usmc, navy and air force. i leave out the army bc the army doenst use or have jets, at elast not fighter jets. the f22 has stol capability, it cannot take off verticlaly like the harrier, which is a piece of shit and cant even do that vertical takeoff shit fully combat loaded, but can do short takeoff runs. it is highly stealthy but not as much as the actual stealth aircraft we have such as the b2 and f117.
the aircraft it is primarliy meant to replace the f15, the f15 is from the fucking 70s. it will also replace the f18s eventually which themselves are getting kinda old. the russians, if we didnt have the raptor would have the most advanced figher jet in the world and even with the raptor there is debate over which one is better. we simply cannot sit by and let other countries, even if they are allies right now, build better aircraft/military weapons than we have. the raptor will replacde the 15 for sure and most likely the 16 as well, so its a 2 for one deal. and the fact that it can cruise over mach one without afterburners is crazy. the 16 at full afterburner and extra fuel tanks will go thourhg its fuel in less than 1 hr.
also i could be wrong but i dont htink the raptor is operational yet, so no it wont be being rusehd to iraq. the war in iraq is not an air war and im pretty sure right now its primarily marines in iraq right now. i know that in may the raptor wasnt operational and was still in testing phase and i would be shocked if it went from pure test to fully fleet operational in only 7 months. \
and lastly club alienn, i dont think tha tlockheed martin, boeing, northrop grumman or mcdonnel douglas own any of the others.
feel free to correct me on any thing you feel to be wrong.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

haven't shitloads of people died while testing the osprey and its considered by some to be unreliable as of yet

[mookie2001]

just about everyone here who has posted so far is a moron.
first off the osprey owns the f22. lol.
secondly and all the way to whatever number my points end in. i ahve seen the f22 up close and personal. that thing is badass. it is designed for all the services, usmc, navy and air force. i leave out the army bc the army doenst use or have jets, at elast not fighter jets. the f22 has stol capability, it cannot take off verticlaly like the harrier, which is a piece of shit and cant even do that vertical takeoff shit fully combat loaded, but can do short takeoff runs. it is highly stealthy but not as much as the actual stealth aircraft we have such as the b2 and f117.
the aircraft it is primarliy meant to replace the f15, the f15 is from the fucking 70s. it will also replace the f18s eventually which themselves are getting kinda old. the russians, if we didnt have the raptor would have the most advanced figher jet in the world and even with the raptor there is debate over which one is better. we simply cannot sit by and let other countries, even if they are allies right now, build better aircraft/military weapons than we have. the raptor will replacde the 15 for sure and most likely the 16 as well, so its a 2 for one deal. and the fact that it can cruise over mach one without afterburners is crazy. the 16 at full afterburner and extra fuel tanks will go thourhg its fuel in less than 1 hr.
also i could be wrong but i dont htink the raptor is operational yet, so no it wont be being rusehd to iraq. the war in iraq is not an air war and im pretty sure right now its primarily marines in iraq right now. i know that in may the raptor wasnt operational and was still in testing phase and i would be shocked if it went from pure test to fully fleet operational in only 7 months. \
and lastly club alienn, i dont think tha tlockheed martin, boeing, northrop grumman or mcdonnel douglas own any of the others.
feel free to correct me on any thing you feel to be wrong.

holy shit yall got owned

[Vashner]

At Brooks I worked on some of the crew protection projects the F22 warfighters outfit with. At the time we freaked out on how many G's they would be pulling. Our centerfuge was only 6 max.

[chode_regulator]

holy shit yall got owned
:elephant :D

[chode_regulator]

haven't shitloads of people died while testing the osprey and its considered by some to be unreliable as of yet
negative. in comparsion to other aircraft that at the time were experimental, i.e. the f16 and f14, the osprey has crahsed far fewer total number of times and also fewer per capita of aircraft to aircraft crashed.
there was a crash that killed 24 marines but that was bc there was a full load of grunts in the back at the time of the crash. of the 4 crashes i think 2 maybe even 3 were linked to pilot error not aircraft.
we have not had a crash or anythng close to it since 2001 and have achieved 5000 flight hours on the new platform. this thing is capable of much more than has been shown already and is the wave of the future. it ownt be long now til the civilian world comes out with their own version. google the bell 609.
the osprey is the future of the marine corps and is one of the most advanced aircraft ever. the technological aspect of the machine is mind boggling. everyone who flies on it has nthing but praise for the aircraft and people who come over from other platforms are truly amazed at both its speed and maneverablitliy and versatility.

[MannyIsGod]

Got owned?

You're boy regurgitated a lot of what has already been said above. Only he did it in a way that it hurt my head when I read it. Not only that, but he said he didn't think it was operational yet when the artical in the OP says outright that it is operational. Its already in active service.

Its not going to replace all of the 15s or many of the 16s. Its going to replace the Eagles that are in the fighter role, but the 15Es aren't going anywhere untill the JSF is rolled out and the 16s aren't going anywhere either because of their close air support roles.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

but it looks so weird

[Vashner]

I have to admit I was not 100% for this particular plane, because I think it was overpriced, but you know little men don't question 4 star generals. Anyway if I had the cash.. would be CH47's and brand new F16's... in addition to keeping the JSF program maybe force the AF to buy some of those too.

I can't let go of the F16 .. it's like a cuddly blanket. And you should see what they have done with the avionics... it's like about a notebook pc worth of stuff replacing couple 100 lbs of circuits...

[chode_regulator]

Got owned?

You're boy regurgitated a lot of what has already been said above. Only he did it in a way that it hurt my head when I read it. Not only that, but he said he didn't think it was operational yet when the artical in the OP says outright that it is operational. Its already in active service.

Its not going to replace all of the 15s or many of the 16s. Its going to replace the Eagles that are in the fighter role, but the 15Es aren't going anywhere untill the JSF is rolled out and the 16s aren't going anywhere either because of their close air support roles.
i meant not fully operational. the osprey is also operational but isnt going anywhere anytime soon. it takes time to start crossing over squardons from one airframe to another. it doesnt happen overngiht. i highly doubt we'll see the f22 in a war theater anytime soon. perhaps MIG you would like to show me evidence saying otherwise. in fact nowhere have i even seen the f22 is operational at all.
and how did i just regurgitate what most others had said before me. i actually said the opposite on a lot of it.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Tons of Raptors would have made no difference in Iraq.
Are they being rushed to Iraq now that they are available?

What was missing in the Repub Iraq war was enough ground troops to clear AND hold enough of Iraq so public security could allow reconstruction.

The terror war we're fighting now doesn't have an enemy with fixed installations to bomb, and fighter jets to dogfight with. The stealth of suicide bombers and IEDs are much more effective against the US than Raptors are against the terrorists, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

The solution to the war on terror is not $100M Raptors.

Boutons, you're a fucking idiot.

This plane gives us air superiority anywhere, any place, any time. Iran's got some of the best RUssian MIGs, some of which are capable of defeating our F15s. We just outflanked them on that one.

And regardless of what anyone wants to say, we're in a new cold war with China and this plane gives us air superiority there.

Go back to your whole you fucking maggot.

[chode_regulator]

ok heres an article saying they are operational. at one point a general said they would go to war if we went to war tomorow. well, newsflash general, we are at war. then they say they arent going anywhere til june and are going to be deployed to alaska. :huh
i doubt this thing wil be in war anytime soon.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Boutons, you're a fucking idiot.

This plane gives us air superiority anywhere, any place, any time. Iran's got some of the best RUssian MIGs, some of which are capable of defeating our F15s. We just outflanked them on that one.

And regardless of what anyone wants to say, we're in a new cold war with China and this plane gives us air superiority there.

Go back to your whole you fucking maggot.


AHF, i don't think boutons_ = boutons, but I agree with most of what you said, for once, heh.
Whatever it takes to keep China from stealing our milk and honey.

This new aircraft looks fucking sweet, and I'm proud to see USA trying to put new models into action. If we're gonna go warmongering at least do it in style. This new plane looks sweeeet.

Ospreys rule too
http://www.glennvice.com/osprey%201.043.jpg

[Vashner]

We hashed this out a few times before.. same subject.

IMO The price per unit is too high. Results in lower amount of trained warfighters, and that puts a strain on the commercial airline industry. You could run 6 F16's for the price of this baby.

Now that it's up and running well let's hope it can deliver on the price tag. They should use it in a few iraq sorties to start with instead of the Alaska deployment.

I guess they don't want bad press of Amerika Fascist Warpig machine carnage. (Even though Clinton probably paid for most of the program)..

[Duff McCartney]

Why can't my tax money go for something worthwhile like giving food to the hungry?

[chode_regulator]

Ospreys rule too
http://www.glennvice.com/osprey%201.043.jpg
lol

[mookie2001]

Why can't my tax money go for something worthwhile like giving food to the hungry?

come on you cant put transparantly patriotic profeedthehungry ribbons on your car

that would look stupid

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I can't let go of the F16 .. it's like a cuddly blanket. And you should see what they have done with the avionics... it's like about a notebook pc worth of stuff replacing couple 100 lbs of circuits...

The F16 is a cool plane, but it screams "shoot me down" on current anti-aircraft defense radars.

[MannyIsGod]

Chode,

The F22 isn't in Iraq because last time I checked you don't need an air superiority fighter to fight suicide bombers.

It is operational, but I don't see the B2 in Iraq either. Wonder why?

[chode_regulator]

Chode,

The F22 isn't in Iraq because last time I checked you don't need an air superiority fighter to fight suicide bombers.

It is operational, but I don't see the B2 in Iraq either. Wonder why?
thanks for pointing that out captain obvious. im too lazy to go back and look but im pretty sure ive already said that.
and actually i would be willing to bet that the b2 has been to iraq and dropped some bombs.
i saw two of those land when i was at nellis in the night. i was towing an aircraft between the two runways and got stuck in the middle on the taxiway. the two b2s were the last two to land out of like 18 a/c in a row. that thing was huge. i thought the wings were going to hit us as it passed by bc that damn thign is so fucking wide. :fro

[MannyIsGod]

So, you ask the question then I answer it and you say you had already answered it. Alrighty then.

If I'm Captian Obvious you're captian Oblivious but whatever.

The B2 was probably used in the first stages of the war, but I doubt its been used in years. Theres no point.

[clubalien]

In 1996, Boeing merged with Rockwell International Corp.’s aerospace and defense units. The Rockwell products became a subsidiary of Boeing, named Boeing North American, Inc. One year later, Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas Corp. Following the merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, the McDonnell Douglas MD-95 was renamed the Boeing 717. and the production of the MD-11 was stopped.

My god wiki kicks ass. The company was McDonnel Douglas.

[clubalien]

Chode,

The F22 isn't in Iraq because last time I checked you don't need an air superiority fighter to fight suicide bombers.

It is operational, but I don't see the B2 in Iraq either. Wonder why?
but the b2 WAS USED IN IRAQ maybe you didn;t see it becuase it is stealthy?

but you probally mean you don't see it in use now?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

so is chode regulator right or wrong about it being able to vertically take off
im confused

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The F22 can't take off vertically. It does have STOL (short take off/landing) capabilities.

With the vectored thrust engines it can take off on a much shorter runway/rollout than is required for older fighters like the F15 and F16.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

When are we going to develop bullets and missles that can be fired whilst traveling at speeds above mach 5?

When the great war comes in a few years against china we better not be at the bottom of the technological ladder...I will not have my country bested by a bunch of fucking Chinese

[Oh, Gee!!]

Chinese what?

[Marklar MM]

When are we going to develop bullets and missles that can be fired whilst traveling at speeds above mach 5?

When the great war comes in a few years against china we better not be at the bottom of the technological ladder...I will not have my country bested by a bunch of fucking Chinese

That would most likely be WW3...end of the world.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_iran_or_bust.jpg

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Chinese what?


math students

[Oh, Gee!!]

why you gotta hate on chinks?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Because they are citizens of a country that is the biggest threat to my own and are (for lack of a better word) ridiculously overpopulated

[MannyIsGod]

lol @ math students.

Nice.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Because they are citizens of a country that is the biggest threat to my own and are (for lack of a better word) ridiculously overpopulated

rid your heart of hate.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

lol you gotta be kidding me
you just called them chinks yourself
at least i don't degrade them

[Oh, Gee!!]

lol you gotta be kidding me
you just called them chinks yourself
at least i don't degrade them


no, you just want them all dead

[Cant_Be_Faded]

if china, india, and china/india wannabes all achieved the ability to give their citizens the quality of life that we as americans take for granted then---nothing

we would suffer

Because other life qualities will deteriorate far before they achieve American status....
its economically and scientifically impossible for everyone on earth to enjoy an american standard of living


theres too many god damn people in those countires

[Brodels]

if china, india, and china/india wannabes all achieved the ability to give their citizens the quality of life that we as americans take for granted then---nothing

we would suffer

Because other life qualities will deteriorate far before they achieve American status....
its economically and scientifically impossible for everyone on earth to enjoy an american standard of living


theres too many god damn people in those countires

How is it scientifically impossible?

[Oh, Gee!!]

CBF knows nothing about science. don't ask him

[chode_regulator]

So, you ask the question then I answer it and you say you had already answered it. Alrighty then.

If I'm Captian Obvious you're captian Oblivious but whatever.

The B2 was probably used in the first stages of the war, but I doubt its been used in years. Theres no point.
what question did i ask. in my first post i said this is not an air war.

[chode_regulator]

The F22 can't take off vertically. It does have STOL (short take off/landing) capabilities.

With the vectored thrust engines it can take off on a much shorter runway/rollout than is required for older fighters like the F15 and F16.
what he said
and i know theyve outfitted some 16s with the thrust vectoring capability but im not sure if that was for use in the future for 16s or to help test designs for the jsf/f22

[MannyIsGod]

I think it was more of an experimental thing than an actual new design but I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

How is it scientifically impossible?

Just think of the amount of land and resources that contribute to the average American lifestyle for 1 year.

If you extrapolate the information, there simply is not enough land and shit on the surface of the world to support our current world population leading an American style of life.

wikipedia up "ecological footprint"

[MannyIsGod]

i meant not fully operational. the osprey is also operational but isnt going anywhere anytime soon. it takes time to start crossing over squardons from one airframe to another. it doesnt happen overngiht. i highly doubt we'll see the f22 in a war theater anytime soon. perhaps MIG you would like to show me evidence saying otherwise. in fact nowhere have i even seen the f22 is operational at all.
and how did i just regurgitate what most others had said before me. i actually said the opposite on a lot of it.

ok heres an article saying they are operational. at one point a general said they would go to war if we went to war tomorow. well, newsflash general, we are at war. then they say they arent going anywhere til june and are going to be deployed to alaska. :huh
i doubt this thing wil be in war anytime soon.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

i know theyve outfitted some 16s with the thrust vectoring capability but im not sure if that was for use in the future for 16s or to help test designs for the jsf/f22

That was just for test/demonstration for the Joint Strike Fighter. One of my friends was the project manager for thrust vectoring testing on the F16. He worked on the B2 project for that, and now he's working on black ops stuff. I'm jealous...

[1369]

Thrust vectoring, big whoop, the Harrier has been able to vector in forward flight for over two decades.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, but with a lot less power and shitty avionics. The AOA this baby can achieve are nuts.

[1369]

I'd be curious to see if the pilot can actually push the F-22 to its full limit. I remember reading Dale Brown a few years back write about how an aircraft can actually exceed what the human body can withstand. In his book the pilots were reclined to limit the effect of G-Force.

[MannyIsGod]

The thrust vectoring would be more usefull at slow speeds I believe. It allows you to point the aircraft in directions that would otherwise make you stall at those speeds. Anyhow, the point being if you're moving slowly then you're not going to have horrible G forces.

[chode_regulator]

I'd be curious to see if the pilot can actually push the F-22 to its full limit. I remember reading Dale Brown a few years back write about how an aircraft can actually exceed what the human body can withstand. In his book the pilots were reclined to limit the effect of G-Force.
yeah weve had aircraft that have been able to do that for a while. i thikn the max a pilot can take, for a short period of time is like 8 or 9 g's. but dont quote me on that.


Thrust vectoring, big whoop, the Harrier has been able to vector in forward flight for over two decades.i wouldnt compare the harrier to a f22 on any aspect of flight or attack. adn the harrier is not that great at its thrust vectoring and si limited by alot of factors.
it is kinda wierd to see it come in and land while its only going like 30 knots, defies reasoning of aircraft knowledge.

[chode_regulator]

whats your point? i said i dont htink it will be in war anytime soon in the first post. then in the second i admitted i was wrong and that it was operttional and was making fun of the genrral for saying he would go to war with it tomorow if we were at war? what does he think iraq is?

edit:this is in reference to mannys post about 6 posts above this one. i cant quote his quote for some reason so....