Raptor vs Eagle

"gregg" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Well,

I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft,
then
it means the US needs fewer of them.

What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?

Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if
they
do cost more.


That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.


The 8-1 was against an F-15 that is at least as capable as anything anyone
else has and more capable than what we will probably up against.

Dave wrote:

Well,

I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft, then
it means the US needs fewer of them.

What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?

Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if they
do cost more.


That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.





--
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

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:yHrOe.2879$Ix4.713@okepread03...

"gregg" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Well,

I don't see the problem. If this thing can take on 8 other aircraft,
then
it means the US needs fewer of them.

What was the ratio for the F-16 and F-18s?

Figure out the difference, and thats how many F-22s we need. Even if
they
do cost more.


That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You
cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.


The 8-1 was against an F-15 that is at least as capable as anything anyone
else has and more capable than what we will probably up against.


Oh, and that IS a good thing.

Martin Hotze wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

well, for me this stuff is more a weapon than a plane. I don't like
weapons. And I don't like armed planes at all, doesn't matter if they
are old or new or historic.

Why?


'cause I don't like weapons.

Does your dislike of weapons therefore lead you to decide you don't want
the US to have weapons?


--
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

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.

Damn, Are you sure you're not French?



----== 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 =----

Hattonville is located Southeast of Verdun, France, thus quite a ways from
Martin's location in Austria. I happen to live in the Southwest of Germany,
about two hours by car (or 45 minutes by plane :-) from the Verdun area.
Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in your travel plans.

Markus, Thanks for the wonderful offer. If and when I can afford the trip I may be in contact.



----== 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 =----

gregg wrote:

That 8 to one ratio was not against planes of equal capability. You cannot
count on the bad guys having planes only as capable as the F-15/F-16.

Well, at the present time, you can count on them flying something inferior to
the F-15/F-16. Given the economic situation in Russia, it doesn't look like
Sukhoi or MiG is going to be changing that anytime soon.

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.

Ash Wyllie wrote:

Very true. Our best hope is that a middle class democratic revolution occurs
and then behaves in a much less aggrexive manner.

Actually, there is one slightly better hope. Every country that has carrier
capacity today developed it over a period of 70 years or more. Many people
looking at the Russian experience have theorized that that may be the only way
to develop a workable aircraft carrier force. It may well be impossible to start
off with any relatively modern carrier -- it's just too complicated and requires
a large, experienced crew.

The crewmembers in our navy have built upon generations of handed down and
modified experience. The Chinese may well require generations to catch up.
Without carriers, aggressive overseas action is pretty much impossible.

It should be noted, however, that some other people feel that the Russian
failure to make a go of their carrier was based on the fact that they were not
interested in aggressive action in any area their army couldn't reach.

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.

Recently, Icebound posted:

Major (world) war will be averted only so long as nations grit their
teeth and abide within some global framework, bad as that may be, but
encouraging others to do likewise.

When nations claim to be somehow above that, and act unilaterally,
others are also encouraged to do likewise.

You may be right...in that "I don't think its possible..." to avoid
"wars". But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to
avoid that for the past sixty years...

What has changed to have us be sliding into it at this very moment?

Asked, and answered by your own writing. ;-)

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Icebound posted:

Major (world) war will be averted only so long as nations grit their
teeth and abide within some global framework, bad as that may be, but
encouraging others to do likewise.

When nations claim to be somehow above that, and act unilaterally,
others are also encouraged to do likewise.

You may be right...in that "I don't think its possible..." to avoid
"wars". But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to
avoid that for the past sixty years...

What has changed to have us be sliding into it at this very moment?


Asked, and answered by your own writing. ;-)


You and I, sitting at our desks, are not going to start a world war.
But when get get together with a bunch of our friends and decide how
things "should" be and impose them on the rest of the world, we are
walking down the path to a world war. So having a forum where countries
can air their views doesn't help.

And, ignoring Korea and Viet Nam because they are not "world" wars is
simply playing with words. Terrorism is building, it is worldwide in
scope and no bunch of politicians is going to cope with it. Terrorism
is a decentralized emotional attack rather than a political dispute such
as a land boundary.