Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.

[jbander]

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.

 

[Slash]

Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.

Which ones were old equipment? Red flag see's the top aircraft of multiple nations. Northern Lighting had the EA18 Growlers in the air and Sentinal systems on the ground. Russia has those S400 systems all over Syria and in April after our cruise missile attacks hit and Russia was upset, the only planes we were sending in were the F22's and according to pilots they weren't getting noticed. And that S400 is a pretty solid piece of hardware.

I'm just curious what you mean there because it sounds like again you are making things up. What out of date SAM's were in use?


Also I've been in quite a few military exercises. They are run by the military not politicians. We didn't lose to make some DOD exec or politician happy, I would really like to hear what you think may have been done if you are making that assertation because it seems way way out there.

 

[Slash]

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.

Never mind kid. You got caught in a lie, you got upset that you got caught in a lie, tried to start another lie to divert attention and now you want to do the personal name calling thing. Enjoy your day. I don't really care to play the 4 year old name calling game.

 

[sakinago]

I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.

Your being ridiculous , no one is saying to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are a little confused. You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says. My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer than I'm willing to discuss politics.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.

 

[jbander]

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

Your being ridiculous , no one is saying to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are a little confused. You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says. My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer than I'm willing to discuss politics.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Of course everyone doesn't love it. People are always gonna be pissed about it.

CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett. I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22. Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.

Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise. Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns. got it.

The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013? What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria? What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?

Are you sticking with your point there? because that's just a lie.

Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time. It's a high cost air superiority fighter. That's it's top role. Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power. We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.

We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately. Doesn't mean they are worthless. They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!! But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win. We haven't used our Sub Hunters either. Maybe they are worthless. Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.

You people , . OK I am a liar . It wasn't a mistake because it can't be, can it.
lets look at what you say, first the F-22 is a air superiority fighter. It's only contact was with a Iranian fighter that was going in the direction of a Predator spy plane. A F-22 pulled along side and told them to go in another direction. Not one bullet was fired. Whoopy ding but are you considering that a war. Expert. and again is Syria a war, we are bombing terrorist groups their just like many other country's where we do the same thing . So are they all wars then,if it is . then They are using a air superiority fighter dropping bombs with no enemy planes in the sky. Do you know what a air superiority fighter means. Expert.

 

[Slash]

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Of course everyone doesn't love it. People are always gonna be pissed about it.

CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett. I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22. Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.

Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise. Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns. got it.

The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013? What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria? What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?

Are you sticking with your point there? because that's just a lie.

Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time. It's a high cost air superiority fighter. That's it's top role. Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power. We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.

We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately. Doesn't mean they are worthless. They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!! But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win. We haven't used our Sub Hunters either. Maybe they are worthless. Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.

You people , . OK I am a liar . It wasn't a mistake because it can't be, can it.
lets look at what you say, first the F-22 is a air superiority fighter. It's only contact was with a Iranian fighter that was going in the direction of a Predator spy plane. A F-22 pulled along side and told them to go in another direction. Not one bullet was fired. Whoopy ding but are you considering that a war. Expert. and again is Syria a war, we are bombing terrorist groups their just like many other country's where we do the same thing . So are they all wars then,if it is . then They are using a air superiority fighter dropping bombs with no enemy planes in the sky. Do you know what a air superiority fighter means. Expert.

Yes, I'd consider that when a plane is dropping hundreds of thousands of lbs of bombs on an enemy combatant... THAT IS A WAR. You can name it a "police operation" like Vietnam or whatever little word games you want. If we are in an armed conflict, that's what matters. Quit the little name game, ok.

Look, you like the name calling. You've tried a couple times to lie to make your position. I called you out on that and it upset you.

Yes we are using an air superiority fighter in other roles that it can handle. It's something we've done through history. The Tomcat was used in that role at points as well. Same with the F-15. "Not a pound for air to ground" was the mantra on the F-15 design, it was 100% air to air at the start. But we've evolved both of those planes and the F22 for secondary ground attack capability. I thought this was pretty common knowledge here, and not sure why it seems so upsetting to you.

I'm not an expert here. But if you are going to name call and make up your own stories not based in reality and question simple things like this, I'm sorry I have no desire to debate that.

 

[jbander]

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

Your being ridiculous , no one is saying to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are a little confused. You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says. My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer than I'm willing to discuss politics.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.

Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.

 

[jbander]

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Of course everyone doesn't love it. People are always gonna be pissed about it.

CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett. I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22. Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.

Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise. Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns. got it.

The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013? What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria? What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?

Are you sticking with your point there? because that's just a lie.

Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time. It's a high cost air superiority fighter. That's it's top role. Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power. We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.

We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately. Doesn't mean they are worthless. They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!! But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win. We haven't used our Sub Hunters either. Maybe they are worthless. Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.

You people , . OK I am a liar . It wasn't a mistake because it can't be, can it.
lets look at what you say, first the F-22 is a air superiority fighter. It's only contact was with a Iranian fighter that was going in the direction of a Predator spy plane. A F-22 pulled along side and told them to go in another direction. Not one bullet was fired. Whoopy ding but are you considering that a war. Expert. and again is Syria a war, we are bombing terrorist groups their just like many other country's where we do the same thing . So are they all wars then,if it is . then They are using a air superiority fighter dropping bombs with no enemy planes in the sky. Do you know what a air superiority fighter means. Expert.

Yes, I'd consider that when a plane is dropping hundreds of thousands of lbs of bombs on an enemy combatant... THAT IS A WAR. You can name it a "police operation" like Vietnam or whatever little word games you want. If we are in an armed conflict, that's what matters. Quit the little name game, ok.

Look, you like the name calling. You've tried a couple times to lie to make your position. I called you out on that and it upset you.

Yes we are using an air superiority fighter in other roles that it can handle. It's something we've done through history. The Tomcat was used in that role at points as well. Same with the F-15. "Not a pound for air to ground" was the mantra on the F-15 design, it was 100% air to air at the start. But we've evolved both of those planes and the F22 for secondary ground attack capability. I thought this was pretty common knowledge here, and not sure why it seems so upsetting to you.

I'm not an expert here. But if you are going to name call and make up your own stories not based in reality and question simple things like this, I'm sorry I have no desire to debate that.

Dam then ,we are at war with Pakistan, Yeman and Syria. and were where in a war with Lebanon ,Somalia, Bosnia Saudi Arabia Sudan and Kosovo. Thanks for telling us , I bet there isn't one other person here that knows we are at or were at war with these countries.

 

[jbander]

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Of course everyone doesn't love it. People are always gonna be pissed about it.

CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett. I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22. Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.

Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise. Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns. got it.

The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013? What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria? What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?

Are you sticking with your point there? because that's just a lie.

Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time. It's a high cost air superiority fighter. That's it's top role. Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power. We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.

We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately. Doesn't mean they are worthless. They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!! But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win. We haven't used our Sub Hunters either. Maybe they are worthless. Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.

You people , . OK I am a liar . It wasn't a mistake because it can't be, can it.
lets look at what you say, first the F-22 is a air superiority fighter. It's only contact was with a Iranian fighter that was going in the direction of a Predator spy plane. A F-22 pulled along side and told them to go in another direction. Not one bullet was fired. Whoopy ding but are you considering that a war. Expert. and again is Syria a war, we are bombing terrorist groups their just like many other country's where we do the same thing . So are they all wars then,if it is . then They are using a air superiority fighter dropping bombs with no enemy planes in the sky. Do you know what a air superiority fighter means. Expert.

Yes, I'd consider that when a plane is dropping hundreds of thousands of lbs of bombs on an enemy combatant... THAT IS A WAR. You can name it a "police operation" like Vietnam or whatever little word games you want. If we are in an armed conflict, that's what matters. Quit the little name game, ok.

Look, you like the name calling. You've tried a couple times to lie to make your position. I called you out on that and it upset you.

Yes we are using an air superiority fighter in other roles that it can handle. It's something we've done through history. The Tomcat was used in that role at points as well. Same with the F-15. "Not a pound for air to ground" was the mantra on the F-15 design, it was 100% air to air at the start. But we've evolved both of those planes and the F22 for secondary ground attack capability. I thought this was pretty common knowledge here, and not sure why it seems so upsetting to you.

I'm not an expert here. But if you are going to name call and make up your own stories not based in reality and question simple things like this, I'm sorry I have no desire to debate that.

Hell I don't care what you think you are or how you act , to me your just another Rube that's trying to say they know it all, Your ridiculous.

 

[jbander]

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.

Never mind kid. You got caught in a lie, you got upset that you got caught in a lie, tried to start another lie to divert attention and now you want to do the personal name calling thing. Enjoy your day. I don't really care to play the 4 year old name calling game.

I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.

 

[Slash]

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.

Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.

All right. Sorry, I'll assume you didn't intentionally say it hadn't been in combat. My bad there.

But you are asking about the two planes. From what I've read, here's the bit.

The F-22 has it's role and need. As do the Legacy fighters. We can't build 1000 F-22's but we need a very strong tip to that spear.

Remember these planes are quite a bit different. While the F35 is built to have air superiority, the F-22 takes that to another level. F-35 is winning vs. legacy fighters 20:1. F-22 is more like 150:1 when it is in those.

Think of the F-22 as the F-35 built 25% better for air to air, 50% worse for everything else. They put a MUCH more expensive and much more powerful radar in the F-22 for finding enemy planes. They made it 25% faster, gave it 25% more range, 25% higher ceiling, made it 25% harder to detect.

It's built better to be an interceptor. It's built better to loiter for longer periods to provide continuous air defense. It has the ability to fly above mach without afterburners, giving it a much better range at high speed.

Think of it like the F-16 and F-15. In air to air all things being equal the F15 would clobber the F-16. (F-15 is something like 110 kills no losses in real air to air combat). But the F-16 (before the strike eagles) was built to take on multiple roles. It was built to operate off of forward bases. It was built to be less expensive than the F-15 and cost less to upkeep. 2 similar but different key roles.

The F-22 has a much more specialized role. But a very key role as well. Probably (hopefully) will never be needed to do what it really is built for, which is win a war vs. China or Russia.

Think of them like 2 cars. The F-35 is a BMW M-5. It's pretty quick, it will get you and your family around in comfort, does relatively ok on gas mileage. The F-22 is a McLaren MP4 It's uncomfortable, you don't want to drive it more than a couple hours at a time. But while the M-5 isn't going to disappoint you at the track, it's not going to hold a candle to that McLaren.

One of the biggest part of these planes is the advanced computer systems in them. That's where the other legacy fighters and support ships and such come into play. They can engage multiple targets on a 360 deg range. One use for them is they never have to open their weapons bays. They just slip in, pinpoint targets and let others from the back put long range weapons on target. So one F-35 or F-22 might take out 20 enemy planes without ever firing a shot, letting SAM's or other beyond line of sight missiles do the dirty work and letting them stay hidden. It's one major cost savings, we can still keep older fighters relevant, using them as the 22/35's long range weapons.

 

[Slash]

Hell I don't care what you think you are or how you act , to me your just another Rube that's trying to say they know it all, Your ridiculous.

No, I am saying I don't know it all. But you are saying things that are patently false. And come on bro. Quit with the name calling. We aren't in 1st grade.

 

[sakinago]

Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.

Which ones were old equipment? Red flag see's the top aircraft of multiple nations. Northern Lighting had the EA18 Growlers in the air and Sentinal systems on the ground. Russia has those S400 systems all over Syria and in April after our cruise missile attacks hit and Russia was upset, the only planes we were sending in were the F22's and according to pilots they weren't getting noticed. And that S400 is a pretty solid piece of hardware.

I'm just curious what you mean there because it sounds like again you are making things up. What out of date SAM's were in use?


Also I've been in quite a few military exercises. They are run by the military not politicians. We didn't lose to make some DOD exec or politician happy, I would really like to hear what you think may have been done if you are making that assertation because it seems way way out there.

Infrared sensors are the cards being played close to chest. They weren’t years ago vs the typhoon, when the typhoon said “oh I can see you.” Stealth was gonna be stealth for only so long. It’ll work fine against guys like Iran or NK, but you need more than stealth, you still need a balls to the wall plane, that is the f22, sadly not the f35. I want the f35 to work, but if stealth tech is rendered close to useless by big players like China and Russia, and the plane severely lacks power to stand and actually fight...then it’s a waste of 85 million. It’s all based on you can’t see me, and I don’t need to be fast or maneuverable, but infrared throws a wrench into that.

And sadly there’s been plenty of politics that’s been creeping into the military over the past few administrations. Lasers shooting at cardboard was seen as a successful test...

 

[Slash]

Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.

Which ones were old equipment? Red flag see's the top aircraft of multiple nations. Northern Lighting had the EA18 Growlers in the air and Sentinal systems on the ground. Russia has those S400 systems all over Syria and in April after our cruise missile attacks hit and Russia was upset, the only planes we were sending in were the F22's and according to pilots they weren't getting noticed. And that S400 is a pretty solid piece of hardware.

I'm just curious what you mean there because it sounds like again you are making things up. What out of date SAM's were in use?


Also I've been in quite a few military exercises. They are run by the military not politicians. We didn't lose to make some DOD exec or politician happy, I would really like to hear what you think may have been done if you are making that assertation because it seems way way out there.

Infrared sensors are the cards being played close to chest. They weren’t years ago vs the typhoon, when the typhoon said “oh I can see you.” Stealth was gonna be stealth for only so long. It’ll work fine against guys like Iran or NK, but you need more than stealth, you still need a balls to the wall plane, that is the f22, sadly not the f35. I want the f35 to work, but if stealth tech is rendered close to useless by big players like China and Russia, and the plane severely lacks power to stand and actually fight...then it’s a waste of 85 million. It’s all based on you can’t see me, and I don’t need to be fast or maneuverable, but infrared throws a wrench into that.

And sadly there’s been plenty of politics that’s been creeping into the military over the past few administrations. Lasers shooting at cardboard was seen as a successful test...

Lasers at cardboard was a huge step forward for the military/DARPA. I believe that has already stepped into laser destroying a drone and laser destroying a boat engine. With weapons hitting hypersonic speeds, a defense system that can operate at the speed of light is pretty important in my opinion. If we have weapons too fast for the sea sparrows and R2D2's on ships, that's the future right there. Plus the cost savings. I mean if we can use a $10 laser burst to take out a drone instead of a multimillion dollar missile, go for it.

I agree infrared is huge. And the design of those jets show how far they've come. F-35 has something like the equivalent of 30,000 hp, and an infrared signature a fraction of a UH-60 with 425 shaft horsepower. It's insane the tech that goes into those, baffles and coatings and all sorts of classified stuff. Now of course IR in use is close range, low azimuth (small field of view to see through) It struggles more in day, humidity, etc.

The big part to counter that is the avionics and situational awareness of the stealth planes. Sure the enemy is out there looking through a straw for them. But they are like a shark smelling that drop of blood from miles away. Just because they might be spotted at closer distances, that doesn't mean that the F-35/22 would not have the ability to avoid or engage first.

 

[sakinago]

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.

Never mind kid. You got caught in a lie, you got upset that you got caught in a lie, tried to start another lie to divert attention and now you want to do the personal name calling thing. Enjoy your day. I don't really care to play the 4 year old name calling game.

I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.

A. I said that
B. You got that ass backwards. No the f22 wouldn’t need the Sidewinder, although it’ll work fine, but it’s picking up targets on radar, since non stealth shows up on radar. I’m talking about sensing the targets, you can’t shoot at what you can’t see, and cannot tell your missile to go after. We’re now upgrading all our 4th gen fighters with infrared SENSORS, because while the range isn’t as good as radar, it can pick up stealth targets. This is what I’m saying, the f35 is underpowered. The f22 isn’t. The f35 relies on stealth to cover up for the fact that it is underpowered. Which is fine going up against flankers from Iran, but you could put infrared sensors on a much older/cheaper phantom and it’d easily rival f35 (as long as it got in range with the shorter range infrared sensor). Now if we’re talking about the f35 going up against the j-20 (that will have infrared sensors)...that’s a waste of 85 million dollars. You could put sirens and ping the location of an f22, and it would still hold its own just fine against any 4th gen fighter out there. It’s designed to be an air superiority plane, to better at pretty much everything, and oh by the way it’s stealth too. The f35 is not designed to be a fighter, it’s more spy plane than fighter. And once it’s no longer stealthy, it’s pretty much useless. This is why I suspect (and know) the other 4th gen planes going up against the f35 didn’t have infrared, like they should have. F35 will be usable, just as long as the air is clear (where the f22 comes in) and is flying high enough (as long as we don’t keep making better and better IR sensors to replace radar, which we and everyone else are working on). This is why I’m saying we really really should not throw our eggs into the f35 basket. We already know stealth can be beaten.

 

[sakinago]

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.

Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.

All right. Sorry, I'll assume you didn't intentionally say it hadn't been in combat. My bad there.

But you are asking about the two planes. From what I've read, here's the bit.

The F-22 has it's role and need. As do the Legacy fighters. We can't build 1000 F-22's but we need a very strong tip to that spear.

Remember these planes are quite a bit different. While the F35 is built to have air superiority, the F-22 takes that to another level. F-35 is winning vs. legacy fighters 20:1. F-22 is more like 150:1 when it is in those.

Think of the F-22 as the F-35 built 25% better for air to air, 50% worse for everything else. They put a MUCH more expensive and much more powerful radar in the F-22 for finding enemy planes. They made it 25% faster, gave it 25% more range, 25% higher ceiling, made it 25% harder to detect.

It's built better to be an interceptor. It's built better to loiter for longer periods to provide continuous air defense. It has the ability to fly above mach without afterburners, giving it a much better range at high speed.

Think of it like the F-16 and F-15. In air to air all things being equal the F15 would clobber the F-16. (F-15 is something like 110 kills no losses in real air to air combat). But the F-16 (before the strike eagles) was built to take on multiple roles. It was built to operate off of forward bases. It was built to be less expensive than the F-15 and cost less to upkeep. 2 similar but different key roles.

The F-22 has a much more specialized role. But a very key role as well. Probably (hopefully) will never be needed to do what it really is built for, which is win a war vs. China or Russia.

Think of them like 2 cars. The F-35 is a BMW M-5. It's pretty quick, it will get you and your family around in comfort, does relatively ok on gas mileage. The F-22 is a McLaren MP4 It's uncomfortable, you don't want to drive it more than a couple hours at a time. But while the M-5 isn't going to disappoint you at the track, it's not going to hold a candle to that McLaren.

One of the biggest part of these planes is the advanced computer systems in them. That's where the other legacy fighters and support ships and such come into play. They can engage multiple targets on a 360 deg range. One use for them is they never have to open their weapons bays. They just slip in, pinpoint targets and let others from the back put long range weapons on target. So one F-35 or F-22 might take out 20 enemy planes without ever firing a shot, letting SAM's or other beyond line of sight missiles do the dirty work and letting them stay hidden. It's one major cost savings, we can still keep older fighters relevant, using them as the 22/35's long range weapons.

This is what I’m trying to explain to him...but we now have to remember that stealth isnt so stealthy anymore, and the f35 being so underpowered compared to 4th gens makes it very vulnerable in the future, if not present day. It’s only a matter of short time till infrared sensors get better and better, may not have a longer range than radar, but plenty long enough for a 4th gen fighter to take out the f35 without much trouble, or even to develop SAMs that can take out the f35 that wouldn’t be able to run like the f22. Take away the stealth on the f22, it’s still a great plane and can stand up to the best out there.

 

[sakinago]

Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.

Which ones were old equipment? Red flag see's the top aircraft of multiple nations. Northern Lighting had the EA18 Growlers in the air and Sentinal systems on the ground. Russia has those S400 systems all over Syria and in April after our cruise missile attacks hit and Russia was upset, the only planes we were sending in were the F22's and according to pilots they weren't getting noticed. And that S400 is a pretty solid piece of hardware.

I'm just curious what you mean there because it sounds like again you are making things up. What out of date SAM's were in use?


Also I've been in quite a few military exercises. They are run by the military not politicians. We didn't lose to make some DOD exec or politician happy, I would really like to hear what you think may have been done if you are making that assertation because it seems way way out there.

Infrared sensors are the cards being played close to chest. They weren’t years ago vs the typhoon, when the typhoon said “oh I can see you.” Stealth was gonna be stealth for only so long. It’ll work fine against guys like Iran or NK, but you need more than stealth, you still need a balls to the wall plane, that is the f22, sadly not the f35. I want the f35 to work, but if stealth tech is rendered close to useless by big players like China and Russia, and the plane severely lacks power to stand and actually fight...then it’s a waste of 85 million. It’s all based on you can’t see me, and I don’t need to be fast or maneuverable, but infrared throws a wrench into that.

And sadly there’s been plenty of politics that’s been creeping into the military over the past few administrations. Lasers shooting at cardboard was seen as a successful test...

Lasers at cardboard was a huge step forward for the military/DARPA. I believe that has already stepped into laser destroying a drone and laser destroying a boat engine. With weapons hitting hypersonic speeds, a defense system that can operate at the speed of light is pretty important in my opinion. If we have weapons too fast for the sea sparrows and R2D2's on ships, that's the future right there. Plus the cost savings. I mean if we can use a $10 laser burst to take out a drone instead of a multimillion dollar missile, go for it.

I agree infrared is huge. And the design of those jets show how far they've come. F-35 has something like the equivalent of 30,000 hp, and an infrared signature a fraction of a UH-60 with 425 shaft horsepower. It's insane the tech that goes into those, baffles and coatings and all sorts of classified stuff. Now of course IR in use is close range, low azimuth (small field of view to see through) It struggles more in day, humidity, etc.

The big part to counter that is the avionics and situational awareness of the stealth planes. Sure the enemy is out there looking through a straw for them. But they are like a shark smelling that drop of blood from miles away. Just because they might be spotted at closer distances, that doesn't mean that the F-35/22 would not have the ability to avoid or engage first.

My whole point was lasers aren’t battle ready, like the they made it seem, that was a big ole propaganda project. Lasers aren’t close to being ready, and the energy needed to power an actually effective laser at this point makes it not worth it. And to be honest the rail gun going Mach 7 is fast enough to counter hypersonic weapons, and is way more practical and versatile than a pretty much strictly defensive laser. A defensive laser that really is only going to be effective against drones you can buy online. Lasers are also pretty easy to develop shielding against. You can’t however shield against straight up super high level kinetic energy. A rail gun does use a good bit of energy as well...but it performs. Not only can it blast targets out of the sky, but extends artillary range to 200 miles. It’s also very cheap....but rail guns aren’t all that exciting to the general public (that don’t really know what a rail gun is), lasers are. I’m excited about the rail gun, and am realistic when it comes to lasers. There’s plenty of counters to the laser, not really any conceivable ones to the rail gun, especially a rail gun with air burst, then it doesn’t even have to be as accurate as the laser, get it within 50 feet, it’ll do the rest.

 

[jbander]

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.
IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.

Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.

All right. Sorry, I'll assume you didn't intentionally say it hadn't been in combat. My bad there.

But you are asking about the two planes. From what I've read, here's the bit.

The F-22 has it's role and need. As do the Legacy fighters. We can't build 1000 F-22's but we need a very strong tip to that spear.

Remember these planes are quite a bit different. While the F35 is built to have air superiority, the F-22 takes that to another level. F-35 is winning vs. legacy fighters 20:1. F-22 is more like 150:1 when it is in those.

Think of the F-22 as the F-35 built 25% better for air to air, 50% worse for everything else. They put a MUCH more expensive and much more powerful radar in the F-22 for finding enemy planes. They made it 25% faster, gave it 25% more range, 25% higher ceiling, made it 25% harder to detect.

It's built better to be an interceptor. It's built better to loiter for longer periods to provide continuous air defense. It has the ability to fly above mach without afterburners, giving it a much better range at high speed.

Think of it like the F-16 and F-15. In air to air all things being equal the F15 would clobber the F-16. (F-15 is something like 110 kills no losses in real air to air combat). But the F-16 (before the strike eagles) was built to take on multiple roles. It was built to operate off of forward bases. It was built to be less expensive than the F-15 and cost less to upkeep. 2 similar but different key roles.

The F-22 has a much more specialized role. But a very key role as well. Probably (hopefully) will never be needed to do what it really is built for, which is win a war vs. China or Russia.

Think of them like 2 cars. The F-35 is a BMW M-5. It's pretty quick, it will get you and your family around in comfort, does relatively ok on gas mileage. The F-22 is a McLaren MP4 It's uncomfortable, you don't want to drive it more than a couple hours at a time. But while the M-5 isn't going to disappoint you at the track, it's not going to hold a candle to that McLaren.

One of the biggest part of these planes is the advanced computer systems in them. That's where the other legacy fighters and support ships and such come into play. They can engage multiple targets on a 360 deg range. One use for them is they never have to open their weapons bays. They just slip in, pinpoint targets and let others from the back put long range weapons on target. So one F-35 or F-22 might take out 20 enemy planes without ever firing a shot, letting SAM's or other beyond line of sight missiles do the dirty work and letting them stay hidden. It's one major cost savings, we can still keep older fighters relevant, using them as the 22/35's long range weapons.

They are two totally different planes, the F-22 is Better in speed, love the speed without the after burner, Altitude, range of their radar system and I believe even though it has comparable payload, I believe that even though they run the same system , the F-22 has weapons with extended range. to go along with it radar. The advantage of the F-35 is you get close to two planes for the price of one F-22 and their working cost is half what the working cost are with the F-22. The thrust vectoring in the f-22 and it's heavier wing load capacity for the F-22 Can only be used in a conventional dog fight . And if this pane is at that point it totally missed what it was designed for. I like both planes a lot but at this point I'll take the two F-35's over the one f-22. The real point in all this is not comparing numbers with any other country as far as all weaponry is concerned , its the massive arsenal with way higher numbers of newer way better equipment and training.

 

[jbander]

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

not true at all. For it to have the cababilaty to shoot down 18 super hornets it would mean having a full load of

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

Ok you step up the stupid really quick , when people know everything, like you do ,what everyone else says is a lie. but you don't know what your talking about really, I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.

Never mind kid. You got caught in a lie, you got upset that you got caught in a lie, tried to start another lie to divert attention and now you want to do the personal name calling thing. Enjoy your day. I don't really care to play the 4 year old name calling game.

I'll quote you---"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," So to do that you would have a complete load of Aim-9 no other configuration will get you to 18 kills. Aims accuracy is limited, it's range is short and it is a Infrared weapon. So if they were within the range of the F-22 aim-9 then of course the aim 9 would be just as effective on the F-35's aim-9, plus the stealth means nothing in the f-22 at that range considering the aim-9 is almost all infrared stealth isn't worth didly squat when using infra red.

A. I said that
B. You got that ass backwards. No the f22 wouldn’t need the Sidewinder, although it’ll work fine, but it’s picking up targets on radar, since non stealth shows up on radar. I’m talking about sensing the targets, you can’t shoot at what you can’t see, and cannot tell your missile to go after. We’re now upgrading all our 4th gen fighters with infrared SENSORS, because while the range isn’t as good as radar, it can pick up stealth targets. This is what I’m saying, the f35 is underpowered. The f22 isn’t. The f35 relies on stealth to cover up for the fact that it is underpowered. Which is fine going up against flankers from Iran, but you could put infrared sensors on a much older/cheaper phantom and it’d easily rival f35 (as long as it got in range with the shorter range infrared sensor). Now if we’re talking about the f35 going up against the j-20 (that will have infrared sensors)...that’s a waste of 85 million dollars. You could put sirens and ping the location of an f22, and it would still hold its own just fine against any 4th gen fighter out there. It’s designed to be an air superiority plane, to better at pretty much everything, and oh by the way it’s stealth too. The f35 is not designed to be a fighter, it’s more spy plane than fighter. And once it’s no longer stealthy, it’s pretty much useless. This is why I suspect (and know) the other 4th gen planes going up against the f35 didn’t have infrared, like they should have. F35 will be usable, just as long as the air is clear (where the f22 comes in) and is flying high enough (as long as we don’t keep making better and better IR sensors to replace radar, which we and everyone else are working on). This is why I’m saying we really really should not throw our eggs into the f35 basket. We already know stealth can be beaten.

Don't try to sell crap here, you said that The F-22 could take on 8 f-18 super hornets" YOUR QUOTE-"the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets," "
Now read closely the only way the F-22 can take on 8 super hornets. as you say. is when their total payload was all Aim -9 nothing else, that is the only configuration that would be capable to do what you said. OK do you understand that. If you do then I'lll add that the aim-9 is a short distance weapon that is Infrared. So it would be very close to the F-18, do you understand that, so the stealth on the f-22 means nothing at visual contact with weapon other then a radar guided missile. The F-18 has a good chance of winning this scenario. Because the F-18 has a higher wing load then the F-22 and the F-22 doesn't use a Helmet Mounted Symbology System. and 3,4,5 hornest will handle a F-22

 

[sakinago]

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Again the detractors of the f22 main concern is cost, not performance. And the f35 is 90% based off of the f22, so taking that into consideration, they are crashing and burning when all they had to do was improve on the best air system ever created...A lot of R&D that went into the f22, the F35 is piggy backing off of, and the f35 is still the most expensive weapon system ever created. I also never said dump the f35, I clearly said until the f35 fixes their bugs, we definitely should not be putting all our eggs into the f35 basket, like we’re doing now. We should restart the f22 program. Perhaps even make a carrier launcable f22. We need a plane with power, and the only thing that makes the f35 more “versatile” is the vertical take off, and carrier take off versions...because it was designed that way, off of the f22. It’s supposed to be an upgrade, air to air, it blows in comparison. If it gets picked up by infrared SAM, it’s going to be shot down. It lacks power. It’s trying to use stealth to cover that up. Where gonna come to a moment where superior tech isn’t saving it, but hurting it, just like the missels early in the Vietnam war. We rellied too much on tech vs tactics that were thought to obsolete, and lost way too many superior planes to inferior ones.

Fine and I'm more then happy that they went with the F-35 , the F-22 is one dimensional and we also need a multi dimensional aircraft or different planes for each job that needs to be done. and yes I will take two F-35 over one f-22 as far as cost is concerned.I would also point out that there is no other active stealth fighters in the world at this point.

All right. Sorry, I'll assume you didn't intentionally say it hadn't been in combat. My bad there.

But you are asking about the two planes. From what I've read, here's the bit.

The F-22 has it's role and need. As do the Legacy fighters. We can't build 1000 F-22's but we need a very strong tip to that spear.

Remember these planes are quite a bit different. While the F35 is built to have air superiority, the F-22 takes that to another level. F-35 is winning vs. legacy fighters 20:1. F-22 is more like 150:1 when it is in those.

Think of the F-22 as the F-35 built 25% better for air to air, 50% worse for everything else. They put a MUCH more expensive and much more powerful radar in the F-22 for finding enemy planes. They made it 25% faster, gave it 25% more range, 25% higher ceiling, made it 25% harder to detect.

It's built better to be an interceptor. It's built better to loiter for longer periods to provide continuous air defense. It has the ability to fly above mach without afterburners, giving it a much better range at high speed.

Think of it like the F-16 and F-15. In air to air all things being equal the F15 would clobber the F-16. (F-15 is something like 110 kills no losses in real air to air combat). But the F-16 (before the strike eagles) was built to take on multiple roles. It was built to operate off of forward bases. It was built to be less expensive than the F-15 and cost less to upkeep. 2 similar but different key roles.

The F-22 has a much more specialized role. But a very key role as well. Probably (hopefully) will never be needed to do what it really is built for, which is win a war vs. China or Russia.

Think of them like 2 cars. The F-35 is a BMW M-5. It's pretty quick, it will get you and your family around in comfort, does relatively ok on gas mileage. The F-22 is a McLaren MP4 It's uncomfortable, you don't want to drive it more than a couple hours at a time. But while the M-5 isn't going to disappoint you at the track, it's not going to hold a candle to that McLaren.

One of the biggest part of these planes is the advanced computer systems in them. That's where the other legacy fighters and support ships and such come into play. They can engage multiple targets on a 360 deg range. One use for them is they never have to open their weapons bays. They just slip in, pinpoint targets and let others from the back put long range weapons on target. So one F-35 or F-22 might take out 20 enemy planes without ever firing a shot, letting SAM's or other beyond line of sight missiles do the dirty work and letting them stay hidden. It's one major cost savings, we can still keep older fighters relevant, using them as the 22/35's long range weapons.

They are two totally different planes, the F-22 is Better in speed, love the speed without the after burner, Altitude, range of their radar system and I believe even though it has comparable payload, I believe that even though they run the same system , the F-22 has weapons with extended range. to go along with it radar. The advantage of the F-35 is you get close to two planes for the price of one F-22 and their working cost is half what the working cost are with the F-22. The thrust vectoring in the f-22 and it's heavier wing load capacity for the F-22 Can only be used in a conventional dog fight . And if this pane is at that point it totally missed what it was designed for. I like both planes a lot but at this point I'll take the two F-35's over the one f-22. The real point in all this is not comparing numbers with any other country as far as all weaponry is concerned , its the massive arsenal with way higher numbers of newer way better equipment and training.

And that’s what the f22 was designed to do, as the first stealth fighter created a couple decades before any other country. But there’s no reason to not repurpose it for other roles. My whole problem with the f35 is that it’s severely underpowered compared to 4th gens. And it uses stealth to mask that problem...the problem is stealth is already being countered, and the counter stealth tech is only going to get better. When it does, the f35 becomes a sitting duck, thus a waste of 85 million. F22 without stealth still outperforms all other 4th gens. What I’m saying is, we should at the very least definitely make more f22s, and should heavily consider pivoting it to JS-Type plane, with at the very least carrier launch capability. If in 5 years stealth is rendered useless by more tech savvy countries the f22 is still useable, the f35 is screwed, and is a waste of 2000 planes at 85 million a pop.