"eatfastnoodle" <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2efc5d5d-11cd-4d3e-86fd-bb10b0baa595@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 11, 3:03 pm, AirRaid <AirRaid...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 11, 12:18 am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:

"AirRaid" <AirRaid...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:be7db830-4bed-4e60-9150-e8a4ebc5d16b@m77g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/01/10/mcintyre.us.f15.ground...

instead of the 183 F-22 Raptors the Air Force is slated to buy, and
instead of merely extending the production to 20 to 40 more Raptor
beyond that, the Air Force should be allowed to buy HUNDREDS more
F-22s.

originally, in the mid to late 80s, the Air Force was going to get
750. this amount was constantly being cut during the 1990s and into
this decade.

200 isn't enough. 250 isnt enough. 300 isnt enough. 381 isn't
enough.

450 might barely be enough. 500 to 550 would be reasonable.

During WWII, we produced aircraft by the thousands.

I know. by the tens of thousands in some cases.

What we need are capable, fast, stealthy multi-role aircraft that can
be
adapted easily for different missions and the different services.
Having
specialty aircraft, relegated to limited roles and not useful for
broad
distribution, is not the answer.

whether it's any good or not, I don't know, but the Air Force is
slated to get
roughly 1500 Joint Strike Fighters, the single engine F-35, to
replace the F-16 and A-10. early in the next decade (which will
become the middle to late next decade with delays). the Navy,
Marines, UK Royal Air Force and Royal Navy as well as many other
countries are going to be getting this plane, in various forms. 3
forms of the F-35 exist. Air Force conventional take-off version. a
toughened, hardened carrier version for the Navy, and a highly
modified VTOL version for the Marines.

While there is a need for the F22, it should not be our only aircraft.

Honu

I agree.

I think the U.S. should have many hundreds of F-22 plus a few thousand
multi-roll aircraft (F-35 or other), a medium attack aircraft
(something VERY stealthy to replace F-111 Aardvark ). plus a new long
range heavy bomber that has equal or greater payload to the B-1B
(135,000 lbs of weapons) combined with the stealth of the B-2 (or
better) combined with 10,000 miles or greater range.

an Air Force based around these 4 key aircraft, plus the usual
tankers, AWACS/ JSTARs and jamming aircraft would cover most if not
all of the Air Force's worldwide needs.

Cost, cost, cost, just look at how large a deficit the government has
right now and how much money has to be put into the two wars.

Oh...so security and the ability to defend ourselves is not
important...but
money is?

Maybe you can buy your way out of the mess the country will be in if we
can
no longer defend ourselves...

The stupidity of idiots like you, that place the dollar above all else,
never ceases to amaze me.

Honu

On Jan 11, 9:44 pm, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:

"eatfastnoodle" <d12s34...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2efc5d5d-11cd-4d3e-86fd-bb10b0baa595@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...=
On Jan 11, 3:03 pm, AirRaid <AirRaid...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 11, 12:18 am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:

"AirRaid" <AirRaid...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:be7db830-4bed-4e60-9150-e8a4ebc5d16b@m77g2000hsc.googlegroups.co=

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/01/10/mcintyre.us.f15.grou=

instead of the 183 F-22 Raptors the Air Force is slated to buy, an=

instead of merely extending the production to 20 to 40 more Raptor=
beyond that, the Air Force should be allowed to buy HUNDREDS more
F-22s.

originally, in the mid to late 80s, the Air Force was going to get=
750. this amount was constantly being cut during the 1990s and int=

this decade.

200 isn't enough. 250 isnt enough. 300 isnt enough. 381 isn't
enough.

450 might barely be enough. 500 to 550 would be reasonable.

During WWII, we produced aircraft by the thousands.

I know. by the tens of thousands in some cases.

What we need are capable, fast, stealthy multi-role aircraft that ca=

adapted easily for different missions and the different services. Ha=

specialty aircraft, relegated to limited roles and not useful for br=

distribution, is not the answer.

whether it's any good or not, I don't know, but the Air Force is
slated to get
roughly 1500 Joint Strike Fighters, the single engine F-35, to
replace the F-16 and A-10. early in the next decade (which will
become the middle to late next decade with delays). the Navy,
Marines, UK Royal Air Force and Royal Navy as well as many other
countries are going to be getting this plane, in various forms. 3
forms of the F-35 exist. Air Force conventional take-off version. a
toughened, hardened carrier version for the Navy, and a highly
modified VTOL version for the Marines.

While there is a need for the F22, it should not be our only aircraf=

Honu

I agree.

I think the U.S. should have many hundreds of F-22 plus a few thousand=
multi-roll aircraft (F-35 or other), a medium attack aircraft
(something VERY stealthy to replace F-111 Aardvark ). plus a new long
range heavy bomber that has equal or greater payload to the B-1B
(135,000 lbs of weapons) combined with the stealth of the B-2 (or
better) combined with 10,000 miles or greater range.

an Air Force based around these 4 key aircraft, plus the usual
tankers, AWACS/ JSTARs and jamming aircraft would cover most if not
all of the Air Force's worldwide needs.

Cost, cost, cost, just look at how large a deficit the government has
right now and how much money has to be put into the two wars.

Oh...so security and the ability to defend ourselves is not important...=

money is?

Maybe you can buy your way out of the mess the country will be in if we =

no longer defend ourselves...

The stupidity of idiots like you, that place the dollar above all else,
never ceases to amaze me.

Honu

Hmm, large economies can afford large armies...that=B4s quite plane
enough.

What lost the USSR the Cold War was that economically Planned Economy
didnt work.

The economy is basigly the milk cow for everything. If it doesn=B4t
work, then you can=B4t afford what you want or need. Hoever there has to
be some kind of a ballance between the needs/wants as there is a limit
to how much the milk cow can provite.

If one attempts to milk it to far, it=B4s ability to provite will
falter. In other words, if you overspend, which means either you
overtax or you sink to far in dept, the economy will falter...and in
the end you will not be able to satisfy your needs/wants.

Sinking economy will create a vicious cycle in which you can afford
increasingly less and less.

Einar

"Rob Arndt" <teuton...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:98bcff76-79f9-4c30-bd26-3fa53d7283a7@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 12, 12:57?am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:

<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:cb436648-8af8-4fbd-8003-1b4f095fabd2@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...=
On Jan 11, 1:18 am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:

"AirRaid" <AirRaid...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:be7db830-4bed-4e60-9150-e8a4ebc5d16b@m77g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.=

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/01/10/mcintyre.us.f15.ground=

instead of the 183 F-22 Raptors the Air Force is slated to buy, and
instead of merely extending the production to 20 to 40 more Raptor
beyond that, the Air Force should be allowed to buy HUNDREDS more
F-22s.

originally, in the mid to late 80s, the Air Force was going to get
750. this amount was constantly being cut during the 1990s and into
this decade.

200 isn't enough. 250 isnt enough. 300 isnt enough. 381 isn't
enough.

450 might barely be enough. 500 to 550 would be reasonable.

During WWII, we produced aircraft by the thousands.

? Well, during WWII, we produced airplanes by the thousands.
? We didn't produce supersonic jets, helicopters, sattelites,
? laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles, computer networks,
? and robots.

That is the most rediculous thing I've read on these groups. ?With today=

fabrication and manufacturing technology, we can turn out armament at a
better pace with higher quality than we did in WWII. ?During WWII, all
kinds
of innovative techniques were used to increase production, including the=
famous "Rosie the Riveter".

It is not that much more difficult to assemble modern aircraft than it w=

during WWII. ?The subcomponents are manufactured, delivered to the
assembly
plant, and the airframe is assembled.
There is considerably more prefabrication and robots can be used to spee=

the process even further...so that pretty much negates your comment abou=

"robots".
In the future, it would be advbisable for you to think (at least a littl=

bit) about what you are posting. ?It might help prevent you from posting=
such inane drivel in the future.

Honu- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not true at all. Costs for better materials than WW2 aluminium, all
the electronics, ejection seats, defensive systems like chaff, and any
stealth modifications are outrageous- why do you think just a "good"
fighter costs $50 mil? And you're wrong about development time too
which runs around a decade now. During WW2 planes were designed and
prototyped in some cases within 90 days and w/o computers!

Yes, and the same can be done oday, with great cost effectiveness, ushing
computers.

You are just a naysayer that grabs at straws.

We will never see a fighter production of 33,000+ like the Me Bf 109
ever again.We spend billions on just a few hundred planes. How do you
propose to fund thousands? Turn the US into the USSR and raise taxes
to 70%? Let us know when you come up with the first "5 year Plan" ;)

\
No. =A0It is obvious that you did not read my response. =A0I stated we nee=

make a "Volkswagen" type plane, a platform that can be easily modified for=
the various services and for various roles. =A0The aircraft would be expen=

if fitted with all the systems in the F35 or F22, but not all aircraft nee=

that. =A0Most of the aircraft could be very cost effective, and used for s=

range perimeter defense. =A0With other systems (AEW, ADD, etc), we could
provide solid defense capabilities at a significantly lower cost than we d=

now. =A0It just takes a change in the political mindset, and removing the
power that the aircraft manufacturers have over capitol hill.

Why don't you take some time and actually think about this issue, instead =

simply flapping your arms and saying "oh woe is me...all is lost!".

Honu- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:69adf8bf-b9d3-4478-8088-cfbfe9a03add@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 12, 3:57 am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:

<zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote in message

news:cb436648-8af8-4fbd-8003-1b4f095fabd2@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...=
On Jan 11, 1:18 am, "Hertz Donut" <somewh...@outthere.net> wrote:

"AirRaid" <AirRaid...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:be7db830-4bed-4e60-9150-e8a4ebc5d16b@m77g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.=

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/01/10/mcintyre.us.f15.ground=

instead of the 183 F-22 Raptors the Air Force is slated to buy, and
instead of merely extending the production to 20 to 40 more Raptor
beyond that, the Air Force should be allowed to buy HUNDREDS more
F-22s.

originally, in the mid to late 80s, the Air Force was going to get
750. this amount was constantly being cut during the 1990s and into
this decade.

200 isn't enough. 250 isnt enough. 300 isnt enough. 381 isn't
enough.

450 might barely be enough. 500 to 550 would be reasonable.

During WWII, we produced aircraft by the thousands.

Well, during WWII, we produced airplanes by the thousands.
We didn't produce supersonic jets, helicopters, sattelites,
laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles, computer networks,
and robots.

That is the most rediculous thing I've read on these groups. With today'=

fabrication and manufacturing technology, we can turn out armament at a
better pace with higher quality than we did in WWII. During WWII, all
kinds
of innovative techniques were used to increase production, including the=
famous "Rosie the Riveter".

It is not that much more difficult to assemble modern aircraft than it w=

during WWII. The subcomponents are manufactured, delivered to the assemb=

plant, and the airframe is assembled.
There is considerably more prefabrication and robots can be used to spee=

the process even further...so that pretty much negates your comment abou=

"robots".

Robots, Computers, Lasers, AI, and Turing Machines were invented
for people
who understand machines, gravity, and science, not morons working
the swing shift for Quantum Mechanics.

On this planet, robots are used in many industries by people who onloy hav=

a high school education.
On this planet, one does not have to have a degree in engineering to use
macines.

Will you be visiting this planet long? I strongly urge you to observe the=
way we use technology on this planet...you might learn some valuable lesso=

to take back with you when you return to your planet., where it appears on=

the highly educated can use machines.

I bet the clocks on all your electronics flas "12:00" forever...

You are indeed a complete idiot.

People use lasers every day (cd players, etc).
People use AI all the time (digital cameras, tohre devices that use forms =

fuzzy logic).
People use Teller Machines, computers, cell phones, and many other forms o=

sophisticated electronics, all without knowing the slightest bit about
"computers, lasers, etc..)

I have no idea what a Turing machine is, evidently those are unique to you=

planet.

Enjoy your visit with us!

Honu