Raptor vs Eagle

Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last manned fighter aircraft...)
--
The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the airplane was rolling very fast. I've never
seen a jet do that. The ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best fighter in the
world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth capability.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Stubby wrote:

It is
the electronics that lets this happen and that is independent of the
airframe and missiles.

In a nuclear exchange, much of the electronics will be useless at least some of
the time. We seem to be headed in that direction with regard to Korea.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

JJS wrote:
The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the airplane was rolling very fast. I've never
seen a jet do that. The ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best fighter in the
world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth capability.

Good against your own is one thing, how does it do against the Mig-29,
Su-31, SAAB-Griffon, Eurofighter, Mirage, etc and foreign pilots?
I want to see that on The History Channel!

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:52:39 -0500, "JJS" jschneider@remove socks
cebridge.net wrote:

The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the airplane was rolling very fast. I've never
seen a jet do that. The ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best fighter in the
world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth capability.

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it? you already can have world
domination with the military arsenal you currently have. There is no logic
reason for even more military power.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?

Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
odds of surviving a mission.

you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
you currently have.

World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 07:29:48 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?

Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
odds of surviving a mission.


almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
you currently have.

World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.

no, not of your military.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

my point stays: there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots falling
out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air combats (too
often)?

IMHO it is useless waste of money. but this is your money, not mine.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor, which
has gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane.

Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/

Bear in mind it's all about quantities. If you spend a billion, and only one
plane, that one plane is $1Billion. If you build 1,000 of 'em, the cost per
unit goes down. True, the costs have escalated (as have most government
projects) but, shortly after contract award in 1991 (with go-ahead in
October 1991), congress initiated three contract change proposals (CCPs)
before 1996. Each one stretched the contract a bit more. Stretch a contract,
and you add $$$. What are you going to do - fire everyone for awhile then
try to hire them back? Training / retraining is a big chunk of change. As
is starting / stopping subcontractors. If you marginalized a subcontractor
during the initial contract, and you give them a chance to re-bid it as part
of a contract extension, what do you think they're going to do? ;-)

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the
last manned fighter aircraft...)

It absolutely boggles my mind that those that can justify the massive
expenditures on aircraft with absolutely no purpose are at the same time
opposed to supporting NASA.

Neil

In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

"almost nobody" isn't the same as "nobody". So your conclusion is incorrect.
Also, even if nobody else improved their weapon systems, the fact remains
that the F-22 is more survivable than the F-15. Since you claimed that
there is no logical reason for the F-22, and I presented one of the reasons
for the F-22, your claim is incorrect.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

my point stays:

if you say so, not.

there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots falling
out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air combats (too
often)?

You need to think about future threats, not just current ones.

IMHO it is useless waste of money.

There are useful waste of money? ;-)

but this is your money, not mine.

Well, you got something right.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article , Martin Hotze wrote:

almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

Almost... "Red Chinese Military Buildup Aimed at U.S." One of a few
hundred links: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2.../27/120722.txt

I suppose the response will be that the peaceful Chinese are just
defending themselves against the U.S. imperialist running dogs