Raptor vs Eagle

Martin Hotze wrote in
:

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


When you become an American citizen then you can have the right
to bitch about how we spend our money.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

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 =----

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

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 =----

Hi Joe!

"JJS" jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net wrote:
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?

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.


Many greetings,
Markus Voget


--
For email, substitute epost with web.

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 =----

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:03:45 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:

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

That's actually not true. Technologically, our primary fighters are on
par with what is readily available around the world. And, let's not
forget that the F16, F14, and others, are available on the world market.
Let's not forget that Russia has their top technolgies on the market;
which are on par with current US offerings. Heck, even European
countries have some top notch technologies on the market. For now, the
line of deliniation is a small gap is US technology, mostly by means of
support infrastruture, and a large gap provided by superior training. Any
nation is capable of closing the training/pilot gap; especially with
Russia so willing to provide those services.

The F-22 is designed to address tomorrow's world today, not the other way
around. Do you know what the world holds in a decade from now? How about
two? China is looking to upset the world both militarily and economically
within the next decade. What will the world look like in two? China is
not exactly the nicest guys on the block.

People who say the world has no need for the F-22 need to stop looking
down at their feet and try to look over the horizon. With the BEST of
luck, the F-22 will be a huge waste of money. Remember, weapons systems
serve two roles. One, lethality. Two, deterence. If the F-22 serves
only a deterence role, it's paid back its investiment.

From a technology perspective, China is growing rapidly. In less than a
decade, China is now able to design and build their own CPUs which are on
par with Intel's Pentium; much of which was reaped from technology
publically available from places like the US and Europe. They are rapidly
closing the technology gap to build something on par with the Pentium II.
Their DSP (Digital Signal Processor) capabilities are rapidly growing as
well. In case you don't know, DSPs are used for everything from basic
radio to complex radar/sonar systems and even complex digitial encryption
communication infrastruture.

With available technology of Pentium II-class processors, China will
finally be able to create super computers in mass which are on par with
what the US had in the 70s, 80s, and even into the early 90s.
Remember, the F117 was built using 1960s technology, most of which was
done on a slide rule; thus the very odd shape. This opens the doors for
all sorts of new technolgies; radar/sonar, stealth, high energy physics,
new classes of encryption, new classes of decryption, new manufacturing
technologies, higher quality military equipment, more powerful explosives,
silent subs, etc....the list is practically endless...and they have no
shortage of labor to build on what is already available in the market
place (skills and both hard and soft technology).

Lastly, let's take a look at some numbers. Ford spent a BILLION dollars
to develop the Ford Tarus. In turn, they were able to spread their
investment over many, many, many units (I don't recall the sales figures).
The Tarus was developed in what, the early 90s? I don't know what this is
in today's inflated dollar, but I do know that's a lot of bucks on
something that is simple and VERY well understood. After all, the ICE and
automobile are fairly well understood, even in the 90s. On the other
hand, almost everthing in the F-22 is brand new, leading edge technology.
The number of units on which they can spread their development cost is
very low; in the hundreds.

The technology that comes out of the F-22 program will in turn, go into
new plane development. As a US citizen, I understand these are expensive.
It does upset me that the project seems to be growing without bounds.
Having said that, I do understand that the resulting technology will feed
into other programs for decades to come. I also understand that their
technology is helping to keep the entire world safe.


Greg

"Greg Copeland" wrote

That's actually not true. Technologically, our primary fighters are on
par with what is readily available around the world.

The F-22 is designed to address tomorrow's world today, not the other way
around. Do you know what the world holds in a decade from now? How about
two? China is looking to upset the world both militarily and economically
within the next decade. What will the world look like in two? China is
not exactly the nicest guys on the block.

Well said. I agree with perty much everything you said. Well put.
--
Jim in NC

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

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"