that is sad indeed. as for the F-22....if i'm not mistaken, it was designed in the 80s, and it's first flight was in 1992. 17 years later it's still the most advanced plane on the planet...AND IT'S STILL NOT IN SERVICE, WHAT THE F#$%!?!?!?!
I didn't know that either--I had thought it was still being "felt out" also. Has it seen service in combat theaters yet?
Don't quote me on this, but I don't think the F-22 has faced any sort of combat yet because there is simply nothing to challenge the F-22. The F-22 around to combat a hypotechical threat, so far. As far the UAV drones doing combat sorties, they're the way of the future, but we're just not at that point. I once heard in a interview that a UAV can't do a high G turn without loosing connection.
You have got to be joking. When the F-15 and F-14 came on-line in the 70's their was no need for those aircraft either as the F-4 was able to fulfill the needed rolls for a fighter at that time. But the military and I'm sure the American public as a whole were glad we had them in the Gulf War(s). Granted the F-22 is not needed now per se (I disagree and say they are needed), but one day it will be. Even now the best Russian fighters, the newest MiGs and Suhkois are equal to the F-15. It is only the U.S. pilots that give us the advantage. The F-22 is superior to every other fighter out there and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. So when you have the best pilots and the best aircraft it makes it easier to win. Simple point is the American Military doesn't want to fight fair and wants the best equipment. Currently the F-22 is the best and even four F-15's don't stand a chance against even one of them.
Computers will never be able to replicate the thought patterns and "on your toes" thinking ability of a trained combat pilot. At least not in our lifetimes. Maybe 50 or 60 years down the road that will be a real possibility. But looking through a moniter linked to a camera on a UAV is alot different from actually being inside said aircraft. Its amazing what the human mind will come up with when he thinks he's about to be blasted to Kingdom Come. Take that life and death situation away and results change. At least thats my understanding of it from talking to several F-16 Falcon pilots. It's first test flight was in the 90's. Possibly what he meant by not yet being in service. To my knowledge we have yet to use it in any actual combat operations, the F16, or F18, B2 (basically anything with a proven combat record) still kinda taking the point position on those. On a side note, I live very near where the F22s are (supposedly) produced at Lockheed-Martin's production facility in Marietta, GA. Obama is wanting to cut funding for the project which will cripple that city's (and the surrounding cities') revenue. The local economy will suffer. Think about it. Step 1: Big aircraft producer stops (or severely limits) production on aircraft. Step 1a: Lays off lots of workers because of said production halting. Step 2: Less people working there means less people leaving on a lunch break to go to the "Mom and Pop"-esque resturants and stores that have been in Marietta for years and years. Step 2a: Less people coming in means less money for said establishments. Step 3: "Mom and Pop"s start closing their doors, even more jobs are lost. In short, Lockheed-Martin is essential to the economic stability of Marietta and it's surrounding suburbs. Keep this up and the strip club will be all thats keeping the city afloat.
Another interesting tidbit from that article is the fact that the U.S. has 183 of them. Aside from doing tests that we don't know anything about, and being prominent in an upcoming Hollywood blockbuster, what else do they do? Multiply 140 million dollars by 183 planes. Ouch!
Has nothing to do with the "Tinfoil Hat Crowd" as each one of those countries has increased their military spending by a relatively large percentage.
I was watching CNN yesturday at the hopsital while my mom was in surgery. It just seemed kinda ironic that on the same day we "lose" an F22, we become 99% sure North Korea has a big fucking missile pointed towards us. There's somethinf for the "tinfoil hat crowd" to talk about. Rank it right up there with Satan's Face in the smoke of the WTC. *I think its nothing more than a coincidence, but someone is bound to think we sent said F22 over there to bomb it*
I'm not a mod, duh! But, let's try to not get political, huh? It's just a discussion about a jet. A very cool jet.
No, I don't have to be joking. I'm not really sure I'm tracking your argument. I don't dispute that the F-22 is, hands-down, the most advanced fighter craft in the world. No doubt about it. My point is that the technology exists to develops UAVs that are capable of everything the F-22 is and more, and they would have a number of advantages a manned aircraft never can. We'd still have the best aircraft and the best "pilots" (can't wait until X-box 360 proficiency goes on resumes ). Far as whether or not we need them now...sure, there's a measure of value as a deterrence. But that's the only real role they serve at the moment. Things might change, and being prepared for that is a good thing--I would just prefer that our preparations didn't put American lives at risk, which is inherent to manned aircraft. I'm not suggesting we have computers flying our planes. I want them to be unmanned, but still controlled--from the aforementioned trailer in Huachuca. And yeah, looking through a monitor on a camera is different. Instead of being limited by human range of motion and vision, the monitors can provide unparalleled range, with zoom capabilities. Hell, throw infrared on there and our UAVs can use clouds as camouflage, switching back and forth much faster than a human could. Is there a measure of creativity stimulated by the fight-or-flight syndrome? Honestly, that's a great point that I hadn't thought of before. But I don't think it outweighs all the other advantages--hell, I think it's offset just by the fact that our unmanned craft can take risks a human pilot never would. Far as what pilots say, yeah, I expect them to say that. Gunbunnys tell me we needed the Crusader. Helicopter pilots said we needed the Commanche. Hell, people who work for the IRS tell me we need the IRS. The point is, of course pilots say that. They don't want to be put out of a job, and they certainly don't want to be made obsolete, which is what UAVs will eventually do to them. And maybe there's an argument for keeping the F-22. Okay. But are you telling me that we should just keep it for the economic health of Marietta? That the government should subsidize a plane, regardless of its military value, just to keep Marietta doing well? Hell, my grandmother lives there, but it doesn't mean I give a damn about the city. TINSTAAFL, guy. Taking tax dollars from Americans to keep Marietta's economy healthy hurts the Americans the tax dollars were taken from. I don't give a damn about Marietta Well, if increasing military spending indicates a desire to go to war, the rest of the world should be terrified of America.
I was just using Marietta as an example. But really it applys to the country as a whole. I dont think alot fo people realize just how much the military contributes to the economic well being of the country. Just think about it. Less planes, lees mechanics the military needs to work on the planes. Less mechanics working on the planes, less mechanics going off base (or on base) to eat. Less money for the resturants. It all falls back downhill, and apparantly as long as I am the one typing it out, the resturants suffer. Its the best example I can think of because, hey, we all need food. If I could think of a way it woud effect the school system without having to go through 10 pages of cause and effect I'd use that.
Then we better get everything un-manned, tanks, ships, aircraft, support vehicles. etc. etc. Not sure why you are so hung up on UAVs being based at Huachuca. Not going to get into that as it will get politcal. No point in arguing with you, and I believe I remember you saying you are a medic in the Army... and I completely respect what you do, being in the military myself. But at this point you are coming off like grunt with a chip on his shoulder because he isn't flying. And for the record I don't fly either.
I know you're a recent member of the Air Force (belated congratulations on that, by the way), and as such, you're eligible for the GI Bill. I hope you pursue a college education, and while you're doing so, you have an opportunity to take at least one course in economics. I think that would break down the point I would try to make here much better than I could.
Actually, Im no longer enlisted in the Air Force. Jacking up your legs and having a migraine (of all things a FUCKING HEADACHE) kinda screwed that up for me so they gave me medical discharge. Not even the nice medical discharge apparantly I wasn't in long enough to get health benefits...No worries though gonna go back soon as I get medical clearence from my doctor. OT: Never said you weren't making any kind of valid point. Im pretty sure I understand what you were getting at. But the point Im trying to make is that diminishing jobs in one part of the country will eventually effect people in the other parts of the country. At least according to some economy experts. Pretty sure they used the F22/Marietta thing as an example on CNN or Fox News (one of thsoe channels) a couple weeks ago as an example.
There's a cost/benefit ratio for converting any kind of vehicle to unmanned. It's very low with aircraft because they're so damn expensive. It's much higher with, say, a tank because they're relatively cheaper. Also, the environment a plane functions in is less spatially challenging than anything on the ground--once you get it up in the air, there's not a whole lot to get in the way. But yes, I still agree with you. If possible, we should transition any combat vehicles to unmanned status as permitted by technology and economics. The exception to this, of course, is anything that carries people. I want a human on board to avoid catastrophic systems failure. I'm being flip about it. Put 'em anywhere, I don't care. Huachuca is just where a considerable amount of the training and testing takes place now, in part at least because of the climate--favors both regular flying and the heat and low humidity are advantageous for running the kind of computers that are required to manage UAVs. Okay. Dude, seriously? I don't give a damn that I don't fly. I mean, I love those guys--nothing warms my cockles more'n seeing an Apache give my people a recon by fire. And Dad was both fixed- and rotary-wing for the Army, so I have personal love for pilots. But thinking they should be replaced by something better isn't envy, it's a desire to see my military improve. I wanna get rid of Air Defense Artillery also (I still love you, Grimlock-a-go-go ), but I'm not jealous of them Shit, I think there are too many medical corps in the Army. We could save a chunk of change on administrative costs by folding them into each other, and those are my people. Take the money we're wasting and spend it on better body armor for the joes. Or better yet, spend it on avoiding conflict in general. You wanna tell me I'm wrong, fine, but the lazy personal attacks are just that--lazy.
Unless the Air Force said they would take you back. Once you are medically discharged for whatever reason, I don't believe you are getting back in. Of course I'm not a personnel troop. But my father-in-law was medically retired and he said that once that happens, your miltary career is pretty much over.
