US Senate cuts F-22. - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 06:05 PM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
US Senate cuts F-22.

The House had approved producing more F-22s but the Senate removed it.

It isn't dead yet because the bill has to go to the conference committee where it could be added back in. Beyond that, F-22 supporters could start to hold other bills (like health care reform) hostage.

I'll repeat that I'm not 100% on board with pushing the F-22's numbers beyond 187. However I do think it is somewhat foolish to kill the production line. IMO we should immediately start offering an export version to Japan and Australia.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32028667...news-military/
Quote:
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to terminate further production of the U.S. Air Force's topline F-22 fighter jets, giving President Barack Obama a major spending victory and siding with the Pentagon's desire for smaller jets better suited to 21st-century wars.

F-22 supporters complained the action would be a blow to long-term national defense — and cost thousands of jobs in the middle of the recession.

The 58-40 vote to cut the money from a $680 billion defense bill was a hard-fought victory for Obama, who had threatened to veto defense spending legislation if it included funds for more F-22s. Wavering lawmakers heard repeatedly from Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other senior administration officials.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

While Tuesday's vote gives momentum to the anti-F-22 side, a final decision must wait for the House and Senate to reach a compromise on their differing defense bills. The House last month approved its version of the defense bill with a $369 million down payment for 12 F-22 fighters.

Obama told reporters at the White House the Senate's decision will "better protect our troops." He said he rejected the notion that the country has to "waste billions of taxpayers dollars" on outdated defense projects.

The vote was "a signal that we are not going to continue to build weapons systems with cost overruns which outlive their requirements for defending this nation," declared Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who joined Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin in arguing for cutting off production.

The $1.75 billion was aimed at adding seven F-22s to the current plan to deploy 187 of the twin-engine stealth planes. Some of those 187 are still in the pipeline and will be completed.

More F-35s
On the other side, supporters of the program insisted the F-22 is important to U.S. security interests — pointing out that China and Russia are developing planes that can compete with it — and needed to protect aerospace jobs in a bad economy.

"The Chinese are really anxiously awaiting this vote," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia whose state would be one of the hardest hit by the shutdown of F-22 production.

Gates, first appointed by President George W. Bush, wants to shift military spending to programs more attuned to today's unconventional wars. The F-22, designed for midair combat, has been irrelevant to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore unused there.

Gates and other Pentagon officials want to put more emphasis on the next-generation F-35 Lightning, a single-engine jet that would be used primarily to attack targets on the ground and would replace the F-16 and the Air Force's aging fleet of A-10s. The Air Force plans to buy more than 1,700 F-35s, which are currently being produced in small numbers for testing purposes. Versions of that plane, known as the Joint Strike Fighter, are also being built for the Navy and Marine Corps, another plus for supporters.

The defense bill has money to build 30 F-35s.

"The president really needed to win this vote," said Levin, a Democrat, not only on the merits of the planes but "in terms of changing the way we do business in Washington."

"I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure," Obama said after the vote.

'NASCAR racer
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican, added that the F-35 is designed to supplement, not replace, the F-22, "the "NASCAR racer of this air dominance team." Supporters of the F-22 have put the number needed at anywhere from 250 to 380.

According to Lockheed Martin, which makes the plane 25,000 people are directly employed in building the F-22, and 70,000 more have indirect links, particularly in Georgia, Texas and California.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who is Obama's ally on overhaul of health care, argued passionately for continued F-22 production. Save the F-22, said Dodd, and you save the jobs — including about 3,000 at United Technologies based in his home state.

To cancel the program would be “a great danger to the nation — not to mention to these jobs which are critically important to our nation’s future,” he said.

The Senate defense bill authorizes $550 billion for defense programs and $130 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for anti-terrorist operations.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 06:52 PM
Bullet Sponge
 
forever_frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cooper, Tx
Posts: 3,142
I disagree. I think we should stop selling our tech to other countries.
forever_frost is offline  
post #3 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 06:59 PM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_frost View Post
I disagree. I think we should stop selling our tech to other countries.
Except to Israel Maybe then we'll get to see it "stretch its Legs"
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
 
post #4 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 07:04 PM
Bullet Sponge
 
forever_frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cooper, Tx
Posts: 3,142
No, I believe all our tech should stay here. Even our allies shouldn't get them because allies today are enemies tomorrow. Now, I would like to see more work on hypermissiles.
forever_frost is offline  
post #5 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 07:04 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Sell it is israel, and keep the f-22 line on a tentative basis.
CJ is offline  
post #6 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 07:33 PM
Lifer
 
89gt-stanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Keller
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_frost View Post
i disagree. I think we should stop selling our tech to other countries.
x2.

NO NO NO, it should be DFWLS1's, CUMMINS, C6 VETTES.net
89gt-stanger is offline  
post #7 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 07:41 PM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_frost View Post
I disagree. I think we should stop selling our tech to other countries.
I hear what you're saying. I just feel the intricate/delicate parts, repairs and so forth should be only done through American companies. Past that, if they piss us off their stuff can't get properly fixed again and the American companies would HAVE to agree with that.

Granted, there are ways around it. However, I know for a fact they can make it extremely difficult to modify hardware/software via 3rd parties. (At least in normal everyday stuff, I AM making an assumption this holds true with jets/planes..etc)

Take care,

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #8 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 07:56 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceyko View Post
However, I know for a fact they can make it extremely difficult to modify hardware/software via 3rd parties. (At least in normal everyday stuff, I AM making an assumption this holds true with jets/planes..etc)

Take care,
Iran learned that lesson LOL........
mikeb is offline  
post #9 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 07:57 PM
Bullet Sponge
 
forever_frost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cooper, Tx
Posts: 3,142
And the problem is, when other countries get our stuff, they reverse engineer it and figure out how it works and then figure out how to beat it. No, it'd be an epically bad idea.
forever_frost is offline  
post #10 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-21-2009, 09:48 PM
Old Timer
 
Dacotua's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Flower Mound
Posts: 4,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ View Post
Sell it is israel, and keep the f-22 line on a tentative basis.
Obama will never allow that to Israel. Maybe to the Saudi King, but not the Jews. He bows to the muslim monarchs but to no one else.

2006 Mustang GT
Dacotua is offline  
post #11 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 12:25 AM
Meeeeooowww
 
ALLAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the MCO airport
Posts: 20,309
If israel gets F-22 then China will have it...fuck that.

Let the Aussies and Japan buy F-22.

They will spend billions on porkilus and fake healthcare, but not on the best aircraft we ever designed.

ALLAN is offline  
post #12 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 12:34 AM
600 plus a few
 
BottleRocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Westchester, the best Chester
Posts: 7,278
Yay for even less fighter slots...

Buy my car! https://www.dfwstangs.net/classifieds...product=124819



some people are like slinkies; they're completely useless, but still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
BottleRocket is offline  
post #13 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 06:37 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by forever_frost View Post
And the problem is, when other countries get our stuff, they reverse engineer it and figure out how it works and then figure out how to beat it. No, it'd be an epically bad idea.
Gonna hafta to argue reverse engineering being simple as pie.

However, I do not know the details of what measures could be put in place so neither of us can argue it in full details.

So, if good measures could be in place I would be for it.

If something could not be in place I would be against it like you.

Remember, a jet is not crap w/o software. (I learned to understand this via another board member who may or may not participate) I did not fully understand that until awhile ago, but it actually makes sense. Most things these days have some application that actually makes it work. They can reverse engineer the physical/mechanical design all day long. The software can be made a lot more trickier to fiddle with.

Anyway, I'll digress since at the end of the day the government would do something dumb to allow them to operate with the gear after they decided to hate us.

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #14 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 06:38 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacotua View Post
Obama will never allow that to Israel. Maybe to the Saudi King, but not the Jews. He bows to the muslim monarchs but to no one else.
Might even see Osama in one....

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #15 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 09:40 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceyko View Post
Remember, a jet is not crap w/o software.
The way to get the software is to put some engineer into a compromising position. Get a hotel room and a hooker, fill him full of drugs, and videotape the encounter. Threaten to expose the tape. Stuff like that. Thats a lot easier than trying to reverse engineer software, assuming that you could even get ahold of a computer to use for that in the first place.
mikeb is offline  
post #16 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 09:51 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
the military said they did not want it, so why print more money for it?

cannonball996 is offline  
post #17 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 10:05 AM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
Fine. I am starting to agree with the idea that it is an overachiever and no air force is even attempting to field a competitor. However, I think we need to maintain an edge in this industry. Keep the F-22s in the air, we may have a mission for them. Let's work on UAVs with this technology because that is obviously where we are headed. And lets get rolling on the cheaper, effective, universally used F-35 variants.
46Tbird is offline  
post #18 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 05:11 PM
600 plus a few
 
BottleRocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Westchester, the best Chester
Posts: 7,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46Tbird View Post
Fine. I am starting to agree with the idea that it is an overachiever and no air force is even attempting to field a competitor. However, I think we need to maintain an edge in this industry. Keep the F-22s in the air, we may have a mission for them. Let's work on UAVs with this technology because that is obviously where we are headed. And lets get rolling on the cheaper, effective, universally used F-35 variants.
The F35 is a tinker toy compared to the F22. Sure the STOVL variant is neat and all, but the F22 is far more advanced than the 35. Either one would outperform anything in the sky today, but the F35 is a replacement for the F16 which is the air force's multi-role fighter. The F22 is going to replace the F15 as the air superiority fighter.

I could be baised against the F35 because I love the 16 so much lol

Buy my car! https://www.dfwstangs.net/classifieds...product=124819



some people are like slinkies; they're completely useless, but still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
BottleRocket is offline  
post #19 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 05:17 PM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
Maybe so.

The Allies won WWII with B-17s, the Axis lost with Me-262s.

Our air superiority is not threatened. The F-22 is supreme, but we still have an entire fleet of undefeated F-15s and the F-35 is superior to them.

Let's get the F-35 on the lines and begin replacing an outdated fleet of many different types with a modern "modular" defense system. Air superiority can still be handled by the F-22s and F-15s.

The sooner Lockheed can get the F-35s going, the better...
46Tbird is offline  
post #20 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 07:30 PM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
As I've said in past threads, there is a very valid reason to get the F-35 into mass production. There is an immediate mission need for it. The problem is that the F-22 "might" be very critical if the threats to our country change. That is why I wish the DoD would hedge their bets by going with an export program.

Yes there are some risks to export programs. Yes it could potentially give an adversary access to our technology but go look at the F-15. It has been WIDELY exported for decades but it is only in the last few years that anyone has started to catch up with it. It would take several more decades before the Russians would catch up with the F-22.

Another thing, the F-22 is quite probably the last of the manned air superiority/dominance fighters. Its replacement is very likely to be a type of UAV. Looking at a lot of the test bed programs, I think the F-22 might be a lot closer to obsolescence than anyone would care to admit. The weakest link to any fighter is the pilot. No matter how skilled he is, he cannot take full advantage of his aircrafts abilities because it would kill him. UAVs are going to be VASTLY more capable with the pilot put out of harms way.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #21 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-22-2009, 08:27 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smithville
Posts: 1,993
obama mentioned this in his stupid fucking teleprompter speech tonight.he seemed all giddy about it.

i "dislike" out potus

RON PAUL '08
fast83 is offline  
post #22 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 12:27 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watauga Tx
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46Tbird View Post
Maybe so.

The Allies won WWII with B-17s, the Axis lost with Me-262s.

Our air superiority is not threatened. The F-22 is supreme, but we still have an entire fleet of undefeated F-15s and the F-35 is superior to them.

Let's get the F-35 on the lines and begin replacing an outdated fleet of many different types with a modern "modular" defense system. Air superiority can still be handled by the F-22s and F-15s.

The sooner Lockheed can get the F-35s going, the better...
We had thousands of B-17s, germany had very few ME-262s and they were having big time problems with them due to material shortages. If germany had been able to solve these issues then things could have been very different but the US and the UK had jets that came out right after the war in europe ended so it might not have gave them an advantage for long.

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was.
Slammy is offline  
post #23 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 01:27 AM
Meeeeooowww
 
ALLAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the MCO airport
Posts: 20,309
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonball996 View Post
the military said they did not want it, so why print more money for it?
I seem to recall a number of Air Force generals who were in hot water for publicly disagreeing with that assessment.

Same thing was said about the Abrams, AH-64, M-16, Bradley.

ALLAN is offline  
post #24 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 06:00 AM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slammy View Post
We had thousands of B-17s, germany had very few ME-262s and they were having big time problems with them due to material shortages. If germany had been able to solve these issues then things could have been very different but the US and the UK had jets that came out right after the war in europe ended so it might not have gave them an advantage for long.
Thanks for making my point that a rugged, inexpensive, widespread weapon delivery system will overwhelm small numbers of sophisticated, complex, and expensive defenders.

And FYI, the Me-262 was DECADES ahead of English and American jet technology at the end of the war. We gained 15 years of jet technology when we secured airframes, engineering documents, and personnel. The Meteor and Airacomet were scarcely faster than frontline piston fighters at the time, much less the Napier-engined generation of planes that were in development.
46Tbird is offline  
post #25 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 07:18 AM
600 plus a few
 
BottleRocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Westchester, the best Chester
Posts: 7,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46Tbird View Post
Maybe so.

The Allies won WWII with B-17s, the Axis lost with Me-262s.

Our air superiority is not threatened. The F-22 is supreme, but we still have an entire fleet of undefeated F-15s and the F-35 is superior to them.

Let's get the F-35 on the lines and begin replacing an outdated fleet of many different types with a modern "modular" defense system. Air superiority can still be handled by the F-22s and F-15s.

The sooner Lockheed can get the F-35s going, the better...

I can't get over how amazingly short sighted your first sentence is. The US had B17's for most of the war. They were decimated by ANY fighter aircraft that Germany threw at them. The allies were about to call off the daylight bombing of Germany, except for a significantly smaller aircraft came around: The P-51. If there is any single aircraft that won the war, its either the Spitfire, Hurricane or P-51. The Spitfire and Hurricane protected England during the Battle of Britain. If England was taken, we would not have had a foothold on the eastern side of the Atlantic to base from. If the P-51 hadn't come around, we would have probably been forced to stop or limit daylight bombing.

The Germans did not "lose" with the Me-262. They had VERY few numbers and came in too late in the game to make a difference. It has been a widely known fact that if the Germans had developed the Me-262 several years earlier, the outcome of the war could have very well been different.


I do not see how any of these relate to the F22 and the F35, however. You're saying the F22 is the Me-262 and the F35 is the B17??

Buy my car! https://www.dfwstangs.net/classifieds...product=124819



some people are like slinkies; they're completely useless, but still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
BottleRocket is offline  
post #26 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 08:45 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALLAN View Post
I seem to recall a number of Air Force generals who were in hot water for publicly disagreeing with that assessment.

Same thing was said about the Abrams, AH-64, M-16, Bradley.
obviously some higher ranking generals did not want it

cannonball996 is offline  
post #27 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 08:59 AM
duh...duh....duh
 
ceyko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ES BEER
Posts: 9,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slammy View Post
We had thousands of B-17s, germany had very few ME-262s and they were having big time problems with them due to material shortages. If germany had been able to solve these issues then things could have been very different but the US and the UK had jets that came out right after the war in europe ended so it might not have gave them an advantage for long.
There are a ton of -ifs- with WWII that would've made Germany the dominate power these days. Thankfully we had things go our way and over all Hitler was too self centered and it all turned out okay.

My '03 Sold.
ceyko is offline  
post #28 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 09:37 AM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by BottleRocket View Post
I can't get over how amazingly short sighted your first sentence is. The US had B17's for most of the war. They were decimated by ANY fighter aircraft that Germany threw at them. The allies were about to call off the daylight bombing of Germany, except for a significantly smaller aircraft came around: The P-51. If there is any single aircraft that won the war, its either the Spitfire, Hurricane or P-51. The Spitfire and Hurricane protected England during the Battle of Britain. If England was taken, we would not have had a foothold on the eastern side of the Atlantic to base from. If the P-51 hadn't come around, we would have probably been forced to stop or limit daylight bombing.

The Germans did not "lose" with the Me-262. They had VERY few numbers and came in too late in the game to make a difference. It has been a widely known fact that if the Germans had developed the Me-262 several years earlier, the outcome of the war could have very well been different.


I do not see how any of these relate to the F22 and the F35, however. You're saying the F22 is the Me-262 and the F35 is the B17??
I'm not making any specific comparisons of any specific aircraft.

I'm just saying that cutting the F-22 (very expensive, built in limited quantities, with an outdated air-to-air role) is not a bad thing if we dig our heels into the F-35 program to make our overall air power a more effective fighting force. We also need to begin expanding our UAV technology. At this point, the human mind and body is the limiting factor in our cutting-edge aircraft. Remove the restriction and let's see what we can really do.

Believe me, I'm 100% behind Lockheed, both for technological innovations and as a BIG part of our local economy. I'm just talking about shifting focus to more usable real-world systems. I don't think ANY manned aircraft will ever be able to defeat an F-22.
46Tbird is offline  
post #29 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 10:12 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
I'm not so sure we need 300+ of them but it would be foolish to get rid of the production capacity.
AL P is offline  
post #30 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 02:08 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
It is beyond moronic to shut down the only production lines in the world capable of producing this aircraft. There is no reason why we could not create export versions for a select number of allies and still maintain the qualitative edge.

Those in the military know that when you control the air you control the battlefield. For 30 years, the US has OWNED the skies.... Why?
Because we made the long term investment to be sure we did.

Do we need a lot of these aircraft? No
Do we need to maintain the ability to create them? Yes

It takes decades and a lot of money to go from an idea of a new military aircraft to putting the final coat of paint on the first one.

The F-35 is not an air-dominance aircraft... The F-15s we are currently using are older than the pilots flying them and vulnerable to current adversary aircraft.

Drones are the wave of the future, but we are much farther from actual employment of a fighter aircraft that can replace a person's ass in the seat so to speak...

Are you going to trust an aircraft full of deadly weapons being remote controlled by someone if someone could jam (or even worse), take control of that aircraft?

How about if it goes autonomous and there is a "glitch" in the code.... How about a "Blue Screen Of Death" issue while guiding weapons to target?

Can all of these issues be resolved, or at least mitigated?

Of course.... But to suggest that it is going to be SO much more inexpensive and flexible within the next decade or two? That's idiotic....

88Kaufmann is offline  
post #31 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-23-2009, 02:13 PM
600 plus a few
 
BottleRocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Westchester, the best Chester
Posts: 7,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46Tbird View Post
I'm not making any specific comparisons of any specific aircraft.

I'm just saying that cutting the F-22 (very expensive, built in limited quantities, with an outdated air-to-air role) is not a bad thing if we dig our heels into the F-35 program to make our overall air power a more effective fighting force. We also need to begin expanding our UAV technology. At this point, the human mind and body is the limiting factor in our cutting-edge aircraft. Remove the restriction and let's see what we can really do.

Believe me, I'm 100% behind Lockheed, both for technological innovations and as a BIG part of our local economy. I'm just talking about shifting focus to more usable real-world systems. I don't think ANY manned aircraft will ever be able to defeat an F-22.
Well I guess I just cant understand what comparisons you were trying to make then.

Buy my car! https://www.dfwstangs.net/classifieds...product=124819



some people are like slinkies; they're completely useless, but still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
BottleRocket is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome