Raptor vs Eagle

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.

Well, if we're going down *that* road, I must agree with you. The Raptor
is an amazing, awe-inspiring aircraft, and I'm glad it's been built -- but I
would have rather spent the money on a replacement for the Space Shuttle.

Or a Mars landing.

Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is invading
someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the F/A-22.

Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and Apollo) --
and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending. Our current awful
deficit can be traced directly to the 1960s (with a few years off in the
booming '90s). Apollo lost out (as did all space exploration) when it
became apparent that more Americans supported the culture of entitlement
than supported the culture of exploration.

Just look at the recently passed transportation bill to see the ultimate
example of government waste and stupidity. Let's hope a future Congress can
do something about the problem -- the guys and gals that are there now have
shown that they clearly have no clue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

Martin, If world domination was our objective, we could have probably accomplished that when the Soviet Union fell
apart. (We might still be able to do that). I know I will never convince you otherwise, but the typical U.S.
citizen is a decent human being who really does want world peace and wants to co-exist and work alongside other
peoples. There are occurrences where some countries or rulers try to dominate others, such as the recent invasion of
Kuwait by Iraq and a limited engagement is a viable option. We keep hearing that we are a "Superpower" and should be
the world's policeman. Many if not most of us would prefer that other countries handle their own problems
internally. No one that I know personally wants to have to resort to nuclear warfare. To answer your assertions, I
believe that there is very good logic to keep developing weapons for limited engagements. Standing still with
conventional weapon development will get us into a position where we have no other choice but the nuclear route.

To keep this discussion on topic and aviation related:

I know you get tired of having this thrown in your face but I also had a close relative who died in WWII trying to
preserve your countries way of life . After that war did we come in and try and dominate your country? You can read
about him he

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiia2.htm

scroll down to
*GOTT, DONALD J. (Air Mission)

I have a goal of visiting your country to learn more of it's rich history and people and to visit the area where my
cousin lost his life. Would you be available as a guide to the Hattonville area?

Joe Schneider
8437R



----== 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 =----

Jay Honeck wrote:

"The only reason the F-18 was built is because components are produced
in 49 of the 50 states." - Randy Cunningham at a lecture given at the
USAF Museum in 1980's.

One wonders what his opinion is as to the reason the F-16 was built.

Actually, one of the graphics shown in the History Channel's show
depicted the number of states contributing components to the Raptor.

It, too, has parts originating from almost every state, thus assuring
that each senator and representative has a vested interest in the
construction of this awesome machine.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Subcontractors, no doubt, selected by the prime contractor for just that
reason.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is
invading someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the
F/A-22.

Hmm. That sounds like an unlikely scenario for many reasons, not the least
of which is that in 15 years, China may be building those for us just as
they're building some of Boeing's fleet, now. Seriously, if we haven't
figured out how to peacefully resolve disputes with civilized nations by
then, the Raptor isn't likely to be of much help.

Lyndon Johnson tried to have both "guns and butter" (Viet Nam and
Apollo) -- and started our long, death spiral of deficit spending.

NASA's budget is rather insignificant compared with *any* military
spending. Why concentrate on the pennies while wasting the megabucks? And,
one of the most wasteful types of military spending is to build systems
for which there is no application. We did that in Viet Nam, and we're
still doing that today. I really can't see the Raptor, or even F15s for
that matter, being challenged by any real-world "enemy".

Just look at the recently passed transportation bill to see the
ultimate example of government waste and stupidity. Let's hope a
future Congress can do something about the problem -- the guys and
gals that are there now have shown that they clearly have no clue.

Jay... "they" are "us". We middle-aged citizens are the ones in the
driver's seat. And, from what I can see, we're not doing so hot at
driving. Or even thinking about what direction we should be driving. So,
instead, we run in circles like chickens missing our heads, enacting piles
of pointless legislation and hoping that no one with any power objects.

Neil

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:06:40 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is invading
someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the F/A-22.

yeah .. esp the US should fear a nuclear armed Iran .. ROTFL.
aren't you rather short sighted? with what arguments are you storing tons
of bio- chemical- and nuclear weapons and start fingerpointing? esp. as you
started to have a pre-emptive strike as a defense written down in your
strategic papers [1]? there is no guarantee for the future that there won't
be a person in the white house pushing the red button.

so there is no need for futher expensive warcraft like the Raptor. the
money would be better spent at NASA, airsafety, schooling or whatever.
esp. as other countries like Iran are fare away from having that arsenal
that you already have _today_.

#m

[1] http://www.google.com/search?&q=site...of+pre-emptive

--
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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:02:47 GMT, Neil Gould wrote:

Of course, in 15 years, when China (or a nuclear armed Iran) is
invading someone, I'll be probably be plenty glad we've got the
F/A-22.

Hmm. That sounds like an unlikely scenario for many reasons, not the least
of which is that in 15 years, China may be building those for us just as
they're building some of Boeing's fleet, now. Seriously, if we haven't
figured out how to peacefully resolve disputes with civilized nations by
then, the Raptor isn't likely to be of much help.

and China has no need to attack the US. China only has to wait, time is on
their side. they will (and already are) outnumber the US.

#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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:54:04 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

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

I won't say that the Chinese are the best people on the world, but I also
won't say this about Americans. And we here aren't Saints, too.

hm, they (China) spend only 1% more than the USA.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2034rank.html

China as seen in the CIA Factbook:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ch.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2067rank.html
Rank Order - Military expenditures - dollar figure
Rank 1 United States $ 370,700,000,000 date: March 2003
Rank 2 China $ 67,490,000,000 date: 2004

compared to a per capita expense .. well :-)
you must be afraid of something.

The money is better spent on other items in your household.

#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

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 08:59:30 -0500, "JJS" jschneider@remove socks
cebridge.net wrote:


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.

Martin, If world domination was our objective, we could have probably accomplished that when the Soviet Union fell
apart.

true

(We might still be able to do that). I know I will never convince you otherwise, but the typical U.S.
citizen is a decent human being

I met some Americans in the US.

who really does want world peace

let's hope it.

and wants to co-exist and work alongside other
peoples.


the average American really doe not see much of the international stuff
that is going on. and he is mostly not interested. (speaking of the average
American). At least this was the impression I got.

There are occurrences where some countries or rulers try to dominate others, such as the recent invasion of
Kuwait by Iraq

recent?

and a limited engagement is a viable option. We keep hearing that we are a "Superpower" and should be
the world's policeman.

this was then.
today many see the *official* USA way outside of the wolrd community. Maybe
and hopefully this is only the *official* America. As long as I have this
impression (and many of my friends share this viewpoint) I will stay away
from this country, I won't feel save. I hope I am wrong and I know that the
average American can't understand my and my friends' viewpoint.

Many if not most of us would prefer that other countries handle their own problems
internally.

yes

No one that I know personally wants to have to resort to nuclear warfare. To answer your assertions, I
believe that there is very good logic to keep developing weapons for limited engagements.

this might be right .. but as I am not a friend of weapons at all I can't
share this aspect. Sure, there are always bad guys and one has to be
protected ... this is sort of a conflict ...

Standing still with
conventional weapon development will get us into a position where we have no other choice but the nuclear route.

there is always a choice.

To keep this discussion on topic and aviation related:

I know you get tired of having this thrown in your face but I also had a close relative who died in WWII trying to
preserve your countries way of life .

hm, that of my ancestors; but I have good sources that they didn't like the
way they lived. It is rather complex to understand, even for folks here
that have not lived in this time (like me). It must be harder to understand
for foreigners.

After that war did we come in and try and dominate your country?

domination? not really. but you haven't done anything without seeking your
own advantage (this was your good right, America was on the winner's side
of the war).

You can read
about him he

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiia2.htm

scroll down to
*GOTT, DONALD J. (Air Mission)

sorry about the loss your family had.

I have a goal of visiting your country

Austria?

to learn more of it's rich history and people and to visit the area where my
cousin lost his life. Would you be available as a guide to the Hattonville area?

where is Hattonville? France? England?
Overflying your link it seems to be in France. Saarbruecken is close to the
French border.
I'd love to guide you when visiting my area (Tirol, Austria) - but there is
little to nothing left re historic sites of WWII in our area.

Joe Schneider
8437R

#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

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:CKFNe.267211$_o.147173@attbi_s71...
Did anyone else catch the History Channel's "Modern Marvels: The F/A 22 Raptor" last night?

....
Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last manned fighter aircraft...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


The F-22 is an interim, short run solution - the F-35 is the is the final manned solution...

IMESHO...

Blueskies wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:CKFNe.267211$_o.147173@attbi_s71...

Did anyone else catch the History Channel's "Modern Marvels: The F/A 22 Raptor" last night?

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

The F-22 is an interim, short run solution - the F-35 is the is the final manned solution...

We'll never get there. The real war will be electronic and the effects
will be destabliling governments, economies and organizations. Any
planes that fly will be pilotless -- USAF is currently testing unmanned
refuellers. I wish they had spent a few billion on artificial
intelligence to make the F/A-22 be able to perform really dangerous
missions without risking pilot lives.

There was an allusion to us all living together peacefully without war.
von Clausewicz wrote that war is the ultimate resolution of political
disputes. If you can figure a way to get rid of politics and
politicians, maybe we can avoid war, but I don't think that is possible.