HOME | DD
FenixPheonix — Support the F-22 Raptor
Published: 2009-05-13 05:33:44 +0000 UTC; Views: 465; Favourites: 9; Downloads: 23
Redirect to original
Description
Yes, an extremely weird thing to care about. I'm just annoyed. The US government is cancelling the F-22 Raptor, the most advanced fighter in the world, stealth capable, in favor of the F-35 Lightning II. The Lightning is, no doubt, a superb fighter. It just has a couple problems. First off, it's not finished. They've completed 2% of flight testing. Woohoo, ready for the front lines. Secondly, it's multipurpose. That means it'll be able to be a bomber, a fighter, an escort plane, but it's not going to be able to do any of these as well as a dedicated plane.Anyway, just thought I'd put this up. Bring back the F-22! (They're buying 117 more, but it should continue in production until we have a reasonable alternative.)
Related content
Comments: 12
hey i since we think alike i thought you might enjoy this article when you have time. [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It really amazes me how obsolete the military's equipment is, and how slowly they upgrade. The most advanced transport helicopter the United States military currently has is the V-22 Osprey (currently my favorite real-life vehicle.) It's a VTOL STOL tilt-rotor helicopter. The primary problem I see with it is there are 179 of them, compared with the army's nearly four hundred 47 year old Chinooks. It was officially introduced in 2005. It first flew in 1989. The newest and most advanced UAV is the MQ-9 Reaper, which first flew in 2001 (the Predator was officially in use starting 1994.) We've got 28 of them.
I do think that replacing all of the F-15 fighters is a little ambitious for a short-term goal. So, how about we make all newly-commissioned pilots use F-22's, and transfer over our existing pilots over the next ten years? Same thing with the B-2 Spirit. We've got 20. 20 of the bomber that could fly freely into North Korean airspace and bomb any nuclear facilities we know of. It's practically invulnerable. To shoot something, you've got to know it's there. But we're still relying mainly on B-52's. (For future record, at this time, I consider North Korea to be the largest threat to United States national security.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well i'm not actually that overly concerned with NK attacking us, but NK already existing cruise missile sphere is pretty threatening in the Asian region.I think the best solution would be to put a anti missile base in japan or SK, and this time the Russians could say crap and stop us. i also think SK or Japan would really mind it all if we did it since it would protect them. also with regards i think 20 is enough considering the payload they could carry. 2-4 could take out nearly all key NK installations in one run and they can launch from home soil.
To me the biggest threat depends of how they have become threatening. For instance if the Taliban take control of Pakistan or one of their nuclear arsenals and create a COD4 moment. Or if Russia continues to become hostile and creates a cold war again. or if Iran gains nukes and tries to take out Israel who will respond with their nuclear arsenal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The reason I find North Korea threatening is because they could possibly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations, or have them stolen. The security on NK's nuclear facilities is most likely considerably laxer than that of the US. I'm not too concerned about North Korea (or any country that acquires nukes in the near future) itself launching a missile, because within two hours, practically the whole world would have declared war and attacked. Basically, right now, launching nuclear attack=screwed.
You are correct, the B-2 is an extremely effective weapon. However, it can actually carry less ordnance than the B-52 Stratofortress (50000 lb as opposed to 70000.) In the sort of situation the US is in right now, we don't need the ability to hit enormous amounts of targets at once. But what if we do get into a war with Russia, or some other large country? B-52's will mostly be shot down, leaving us with pretty much just the B-2's. At that point, the US's ability to drop ordinance (hopefully just conventional) will be cut severely. To that end, we should continue expanding our fleet of ships that can penetrate through that defense.
Obviously, it's completely impractical to purchase them all right now. Each b-2 costs around two billion dollars. But over the course of the next twenty years, I would suggest building our current fleet of twenty B-2's up to forty (that's forty billion dollars, I know. Hey, take it out of what's left of the financial rescue package. Hopefully not everything will be used.) We could trim down our fleet of B-52's at the same time to lower costs (we have nearly two hundred of those.) And, of course, I support renovating the US's fighter fleet up to the most modern possible, within the same time frame. And that means F-22's, not F-35's, which are more expensive and less effective, as well as having 2% of the flight testing complete.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well i suppose if they have a smart enough military writer guy they could give congress a bill or budget that says they are cutting spending and actually save money by decommissioning f-15, in exchange for f-22. personally i find the idea of the f-35 like the idea of vista and the f-22 being windows xp when it first came out. now i would support no longer creating b-52's but honestly i still think we need them. i hear you about them being shot down and all, but i figure they would only be used like they were in Vietnam anyway. they only go in after or interceptors have cleared the skies and our strike aircraft have taken out enemy sam sites. about NK selling nukes i fear Pakistan and Iran's ability to hold on to nukes more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, I didn't mean that we didn't need B-52's. They work perfectly well against any terrorist organization or poorly defended target, especially en masse and escorted. I'm saying that when World War III comes along, they're going to be little more than cannon fodder.
Regarding the F-22 and F-35, I can see niche groups for both of them. Currently, the F-35 is 2/3 the cost of the F-22, meaning that it would be effective if we need lots of fighters, especially since it can be used for multiple purposes. The problem is that the price is going to go up. It's 80 million per unit now, but that's going to change by the time it's introduced, which is going to be pushed back. The F-22, meanwhile, isn't as versatile, but is capable of outperforming everything else within its area. In World War III (it's going to happen. I guarantee it), we'll need both. If all we have is extremely expensive fighters, they'll be swarmed, run out of missiles, and die. If all we have is low end fighters, they'll be taken out by a comparatively low number of advanced fighters. The best way is a large number of advanced fighters, but sometimes that isn't an option.
As for nukes, why not worry about all of them? The blob of grey matter in our skulls can multiprocess millions of things at once, so worrying simultaneously about North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran isn't a problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
two questions...
1). if WWIII happened where do you think would be the safest
2). pick 4 people... and assuming you would die a painless death 4 days from now with those people what would you do also everyone else in the world has dissapeared.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Pluto. If it has to be on the Earth, I'd say Switzerland, right now. They probably will try not to get embroiled in the war.
2. Honestly? No idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
HEY DUDE. i'm so sorry. you were totaly right about the NK thing. just look at today's news. so anyway we really need a plan to act about this cause they aren't stopping this time
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's all right. Hell, I'd prefer that you were right and they weren't such a big issue. It is what it is, no sense dwelling on the past.
Basically, at this point, I think the US needs to intervene directly. It's obvious at this point that there is no way to convince them to give up their nuclear program. The best way is a covert infiltration and sabotage. Nuclear weapons are enormously powerful, and also enormously complex. There are any number of ways to make one not work, or detonate prematurely. If a mistake destroyed the production area, then the North Korean government might think twice about starting it up again. If there's no other way to fix the situation, then we have the B-2. Obviously, that's a bad solution, but it would be easier to explain to the UN why we blew up a North Korean installation than it would be to fix up New York after a nuclear bomb destroyed it.
Basically, at this point, I believe that a direct solution is the only possible way to solve this situation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well i hope that we could end this without having to directly deal with NK's Nukes ourselves, but like you said it seems less likely that it would work all the time. not that we should lose help, but i've seen how far and how much Obama's hope is getting us and such. relly though destroying production wouldn't be necessary. a far easier and more subtle way would to sabotage the cooling system. this way they would either have to shut it down themselves or Chernobyl themselves. shutting it down would make them look incompetent and potentially scare them from accelerating their nuclear program the same way Chernobyl and 3 mile island halted ours and the Russians. if they do end up with a meltdown then we can try our best to protect SK while NK implodes with issues. both make them look incompetent and point fingers at each other providing an internal struggle. we can also spin the media to trash talk the quality and safety issues regarding their reactors before the event and after, and if we were to make a Tom Clancy novel of it we would of course be using deep cover delta force agents who have posing as ultra nationalists or terrorists or anybody other than us that pulled it off in case they get caught or take responsibility for it. this way they can blame sabotage or spies and us but can't prove it and creates an internal struggle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And now they've sentenced two American journalists to 12 years of hard labor. They aren't even citizens of NK. There's no jurisdiction that allows them to do that. We're obviously past the point where negotiation is a feasible option. I think we might be getting to the point where we need to actually declare war. I agree, covert action is best if possible, but the problem is it doesn't send the same message. If some "terrorist" group sabotages their nuclear facilities, then it's some terrorist group, with no connection to the US. Basically, I think at this point we need to issue an ultimatum. "Release the prisoners and cease nuclear development, or we will declare war." It's not an exceptionally elegant way of dealing with the situation, and if we do actually have to declare war, then that's a really bad situation with all that's going on, but the situation in Iraq, we would have clearly defined targets. Within twenty-four hours, some form of special forces (not Delta. Delta is, at this point, a publicity group. People know about them, so they aren't used for the same sort of stuff they used to) could capture Kim Il-sung and all of the other Kim Il's (their whole government is made up of Kim _ Il people.) It's not a situation I think we should try to deal with, but it's the best solution I can see out of this.
Summed up suggestion: Ultimatum. "Release your prisoners and cease nuclear development, or we declare war."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0