F/A-22 a Joint Project?

[Aviator4000]

Please don't make ridiculous, uninformed blanket statements like that. However well intentioned your remarks are, we don't need to go down this road again.

Keeping it real,

Brett

Uninformed? Maybe, but who on this board is truly informed on the details of how a hypothetical air to air combat situation between newest gen. of russian jets an a superhornet would turn out?

Ridiculous? I don't think so. Remember that it is politicians that have the final say on military spending issues. Thats right a group of people in which roughly half (Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, etc.) would love to see the U.S. military be completely dismantled. In a time where France is trying to rule the European Union (that is why they now have 2 full sized carriers), and China is beefing up their military, and the U.S. is cutting the budget I hardly think it is ridiculous for a tax payer/future Marine to have a concern over what military equipment is being purchased in order to protect me and my fellow countrymen!

 

[gregsivers]

It would be totally cost prohibitive to make the Raptor carrier capable. The JSF came in overweight, and it was planned to be carrier borne. Think how badly the transition for the Raptor would be. Too many mods would have to be made for it to be worth it, especially in today's cost conscious military.

 

[KBayDog]

I hardly think it is ridiculous for a tax payer/future Marine to have a concern over what military equipment is being purchased in order to protect me and my fellow countrymen!

It is not ridiculous, but the reality (ESPECIALLY in the Marine Corps!) is that you must be able to accomplish the mission with whatever the government gives you. If you are ordered to, say, a SEAD mission with nothing but a jock strap and an E-tool, you'd better be able to get the mission accomplished.

Sometimes you will get great gear, and sometimes you will get crap. Let the folks who provide the funding worry about what we are going to get; you just worry about the capabilities and limitations of your - and your enemy's - gear.

 

[Coota0]

Sounds tome that the USAF wants extra money to get their extra F-22s, and making the Navy look bad is where they're going to get it. If a simple taxpayer sees that the USAF wants to share their new airplane with the Navy and all it wants from the Navy is a little money and the Navy refuses it looks like the Navy is refusing to be a teamplayer. Then again most of these peopl don't even realize that the USAF doesn't fly off of Navy ships.

Didn't the Navy have a chance to get in on this program awhile back and turn it down, why would the Navy change it's mind now?

 

[Whalebite]

Most people who care, or in a position to affect this will know that.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Uninformed? Maybe, but who on this board is truly informed on the details of how a hypothetical air to air combat situation between newest gen. of russian jets an a superhornet would turn out?

Oh I would say there are plenty of active duty aviators on this board that have access to that information - both classified and unclassified. When not actively engaged in blowing the **** out of the bad guys, that's what the military does - collect this type of information and train to beat the adversary.

Yup, you are seriously uninformed.

 

[Pags]

Uninformed? Maybe, but who on this board is truly informed on the details of how a hypothetical air to air combat situation between newest gen. of russian jets an a superhornet would turn out?

Ridiculous? I don't think so. Remember that it is politicians that have the final say on military spending issues.

No matter how bad a politician wanted a -22 to fly, or more importantly, land on a carrier, it just wouldn't be realistic for it to happen. There's a lot more involved with getting a jet on board a carrier than just adding a tailhook. And while yes, the F-16 and -15 both do have tailhooks, they are in no way able to land on a carrier, those hooks are designed for shore based emergency arresting systems.

Just for comparison, here are the main landing gears of an -18 and a -15, note how much bulkier the -18s are. and this shows none of the internal strengthening done to carrier a/c.

F/A-18 mains:

F-15 mains:

 

[SteveG75]

Uninformed? Maybe, but who on this board is truly informed on the details of how a hypothetical air to air combat situation between newest gen. of russian jets an a superhornet would turn out?

Ridiculous? I don't think so. Remember that it is politicians that have the final say on military spending issues. Thats right a group of people in which roughly half (Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, etc.) would love to see the U.S. military be completely dismantled. In a time where France is trying to rule the European Union (that is why they now have 2 full sized carriers), and China is beefing up their military, and the U.S. is cutting the budget I hardly think it is ridiculous for a tax payer/future Marine to have a concern over what military equipment is being purchased in order to protect me and my fellow countrymen!

Before Brett drops the hammer.

1) The French only have one carrier, the De Gaulle. Yes it is nuclear powered but it is a smaller than even the USS Midway. The Foch was sold to Brazil? or maybe Chile? Either way, it is gone.

2) The F/a-22 cannot be made carrier capable. This like when Jumper decided to call it the F/a-22 vice F-22 to keep it alive. BTW: The small 'a' is my opinion of USAF priorities.

3) I see from your profile that you want to be an SNA someday. Some people on this board (Brett, me, Bunk, etc) are active duty. We were SNA/SNFO a long time ago. Now, we know stuff we can't tell but we also have a wealth of unclassified real world experience to draw on. All I am saying is consider the source of some of these comments.

 

[SteveG75]

Oh I would say there are plenty of active duty aviators on this board that have access to that information - both classified and unclassified. When not actively engaged in blowing the **** out of the bad guys, that's what the military does - collect this type of information and train to beat the adversary.

Yup, you are seriously uninformed.

Damn HAL, you beat me too it. I was just trying to get in before the Brett sarcasm attack. :icon_smil

 

[Brett327]

Damn HAL, you beat me too it. I was just trying to get in before the Brett sarcasm attack. :icon_smil

Attack? Moi? I'm just tired of beating this dead horse.

Good times,

Brett

 

[SteveG75]

Attack? Moi? I'm just tired of beating this dead horse.

Good times,

Brett

Just for you buddy:

 

[eddie]

Is that "beating of the dead horse" a smiley?

 

[SteveG75]

Is that "beating of the dead horse" a smiley?

Off another site. I just linked it in as an image.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Is that "beating of the dead horse" a smiley?

That's an awesome idea! Hey Webmaster Steve! Any way to add that dead horse to the smiles list?

 

[Aviator4000]

Oh I would say there are plenty of active duty aviators on this board that have access to that information - both classified and unclassified. When not actively engaged in blowing the **** out of the bad guys, that's what the military does - collect this type of information and train to beat the adversary.

Yup, you are seriously uninformed.

Excuse me, I didn't think there were that many aviators on this board. I thought most people on this forum were aspiring aviators. Sorry if that statement offended you, I know active aviators would have access to that type of info. Just didn't think many actively posted on this forum.