The F-22

Navy is getting the JSF like Australia. WOO us. Were sapping all your old planes in the mean time. Man were poor

The f-22 is the most awesomest plane ever, except the B-2 (duh). It is being held back by humans

On the subject of space bugs/weapons arent there plans to make orbtial drop troopers(bascially ODST's but not was cool)

are you talking about HALO jumpers?they basically jump out of planes really high in the atmosphere and they have a breathing apparatus and wing suits. They basically just glide into enemy territory from out of radar range and then open their parachutes when they are over their target.

shift funding to the 35 for now, as well as for other projects

Kasrkin Seath wrote:shift funding to the 35 for now, as well as for other projects

To hell with the 35.

Now, not that I don't like the F-22, but I do think we should probably cut the program off at its current cut off point, 185, at least until they can find a way to produce them more cheaply.

In the meantime, literally 4 F-22's could take out a force of 6 times their own size with some support from AWACS, not to mention they're perfectly capable of air to surface missions as well.

185 is more than enough for the time being, and still enough that we don't need to get inferior planes like the Eurofighter or F-35.

the F-35 is not inferior.

Barbbachello wrote:On the subject of space bugs/weapons arent there plans to make orbtial drop troopers(bascially ODST's but not was cool)

Well, the idea is to create a plane that can get into low orbit and drop right into an enemy nation and disgorge two squads of Marines. By doing this, you can evade having to ask allies to fly through their airspace. When we had to do that with Pakistan, Bin Laden got away.

HOWEVER, once the Marines got to the target, there would be NO WAY to support them. They couldn't evac without running into the same problem that the airplane evaded in the first place. Finally, nations of the world could just raise the height of their airspace and we're back at square one.

So, it's not a very practical idea, the modern day equivalent of a jet fighter that can land on skis (Another real-life Pentagon project)

tiny tim wrote:the F-35 is not inferior.

It's a smaller, one-engine, "little sister" of the F-22 that is only stealthy when it's facing the radar source.

And:

Lockheed Martin claims the F-35 will have turning agility/ability of up to 9 g's and provide close-in or long-range air-to-air combat capability second only to the F-22 Raptor

I'm not saying it's a bad plane, it's just not up to par with the F-22.
It's more like comparing the F-16 to the F-15, only this time, the F-15 in this case is also capable of air-surface missions, so the F-16 isn't necessary.

F-35 is more versatile. If we can only fund the 22 or 35, I would rather have 35's

Kasrkin Seath wrote:F-35 is more versatile. If we can only fund the 22 or 35, I would rather have 35's

That makes us no better than the Soviets were.

Sacrificing quality for quantity.

You guys just continue investing in planes.
We'll be investing in something more...efficient.

Uh... this is an opposite poll. Yes, because atm the UN/Any countries that are friends don't NEED it.

I think you are talking abot the Euro fighter that is only stealthy when facing the enemy Pie.

PiEman wrote:

Kasrkin Seath wrote:F-35 is more versatile. If we can only fund the 22 or 35, I would rather have 35's

That makes us no better than the Soviets were.

Sacrificing quality for quantity.

If we can afford only one or the other, I would rather have the F-35


And remember pie, that mentality is what won WWII

Warthog AtG bomber FTW!!!!

A-10's pwn

Kasrkin Seath wrote:

PiEman wrote:

Kasrkin Seath wrote:F-35 is more versatile. If we can only fund the 22 or 35, I would rather have 35's

That makes us no better than the Soviets were.

Sacrificing quality for quantity.

If we can afford only one or the other, I would rather have the F-35


And remember pie, that mentality is what won WWII

For the Soviets, against an enemy that had limited resources and was getting it's factories and machine shops blown to hell by allied terror-bombing, yes.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:

PiEman wrote:

Kasrkin Seath wrote:F-35 is more versatile. If we can only fund the 22 or 35, I would rather have 35's

That makes us no better than the Soviets were.

Sacrificing quality for quantity.

If we can afford only one or the other, I would rather have the F-35


And remember pie, that mentality is what won WWII

It also got way too many people killed than was desired, and was necessary because of the situation.

I'm not saying we need to make a ton of these planes, I'm saying we should use what we've got for now, and not switch over to the Eurofighter and 35.

yes, what we have for now, but switch the extra funding.

And I love how you use the term terror bombing. There is no such thing in total war.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:yes, what we have for now, but switch the extra funding.

And I love how you use the term terror bombing. There is no such thing in total war.

When did I ever use the term terror bombing?

Well, who did anyway?

Rasq'

Ja/Da?

Kasrkin Seath wrote:yes, what we have for now, but switch the extra funding.

And I love how you use the term terror bombing. There is no such thing in total war.

Hey, I just use it because the Brits wanted to prosecute the Germans for the buzzbomb campaign. And then the Russians went ahead and sentenced Whermarcht and SS officers for actions against Partisans.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Ja/Da?

I was responding to pie, he asked who said terror bombing

Yeah. I went back and re-read that. Can't believe I missed two entire posts.

Dude, I would say to keep it in production, but not use it. We really don't need it atm, since USA is fighting a ground war, dogfighters aren't needed. That's why the Warthog A-10 Bomber would be useful.