PDA

View Full Version : The brady clan and the F22


hippy
February 08, 2003, 20:57
I got bored and started reading various info on the sunset of the 94 AW ban. I was appalled by the stupidity of the arguments made by the brady.org or whatever their site is. To paraphrase, 'we need to renew the ban because AW are designed to kill'. They argued several points that a kalashnikov is a killer gun, and not suitable for hunting (hunting apparently doesn't involve killing anything). It can only kill man apparently, if I point it at a squirrel it will have little if any effect. It was stupifying. I got upset reading that tripe and came here and searched through the archives and stumbled on to someone talking about the Raptor. Several people posted putting the f22 down, it won't be able to beat the f15, it costs $200 million, it can't carry enough ordinance etc. The expected price per copy as per NOVA special was quoted at $100MM per copy, roughly 2 to 2.5 what an f15 would cost. Someone else went as far as to call the raptors kid brother, the JSF, a target. The JSF is designed to replace several frontline fighters, namely the 16 for the AF, and the f18 for the marines and navy (harrier jump jet for the brits). Currently, the only 'in service' frontline fighters that could hope to compete against an f16 would include the Sukhoi flanker and super flanker, and potentially the eurofighter typhoon. Not many countries would view a swarm of f16's as targets. Furthermore, the f22 is superior to the f15. It produces a healthy 70+ thousand pounds of thrust compared to the 15's 50 (plus thrust vectoring helps it turn in nifty tight circles). Factor in that the US invests much more into it's fighter pilots in training than most other folk, and it becomes and even more lopsided fight.

To summarize, I think it's best to stop and question if your argument is based on logic. Why would my HK be more lethal than a rem 700 in .308? Why would the air force buy a new fighter that costs twice as much as their current model, and is inferior? Sure, the gov is chalk full of idiots who spend money in strange ways, but the raptor is, at least for the most part, a Lockheed design (with boeing and several others being responisible for some of the bits). It is a marvel of modern ability, and in my opinion will be the most capable fighter in service world wide for many years. I don't expect much from the whackos who suppose that a semi automatic rifle 'aw' is more deadly than a bolt gun, but I find that I have more in common with views expressed on this board. So please, don't just pulls things out of you ass and write them down.

On a final note, the f22 has been scheduled to enter service in 2005 I think, maybe 2006, for some time. The JSF contract was awarded to Lockheed. I doubt the JSF will be a target, it's design objectives included exceeding the performance of the f16.

OmegaMBR
February 08, 2003, 22:35
I could care less about the F-22 since nobody can compete with our 1980 era stuff yet. The JSF though is a VTOL, attack, naval aviation and stealth plane all in one. very cool.

jaimeshawn
February 08, 2003, 23:45
Why would the air force buy a new fighter that costs twice as much as their current model, and is inferior?

IMHO: Most, but perhaps not all, government purchasing and especially military purchasing is based on politics, and not on anything remotely close to need or logic. I personally don't know if the F22 or the JSF fighter are going to be that great. I hope they are - I suspect that the OICW will be a disaster.

bykerhd
February 09, 2003, 00:37
The Brady bunch, whatever their current name, will never admit anything they have supported is wrong. Any legislation that reduces the number of firearms available, they view as good. Common sense doesn't work with them. Phony statistics and outright lies as well as exaggeration and coercion are commonly used by that crowd. Their ultimate goal is to ban ALL weapons and thereby make us less violent and more civilized.
Guns kill, you know.
Join the NRA or GOA or both if you hope to preserve your shooting rights.

EmbassyMarine
February 09, 2003, 07:00
IT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

EMDII
February 09, 2003, 08:41
Originally posted by EmbassyMarine
IT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Exactly! Where is my gladius:?

fireback
February 09, 2003, 10:32
So we should only need about ten of them (f-22's) to take on the world. Sounds cost effective to me. Love the plane, but that OICW is one ugly red-headed step child.

gunnut1
February 09, 2003, 11:28
Hippy,
What you are reading is not new. They started that crap before the ban went into effect and it was being railroaded... uhh I mean debated in the halls of congress.

I never got so tired of hearing:
"The AK47 is a powerful rifle designed to do nothing but kill other people."

OK, that is it's intended purpose. But what about other weapons. Are they designed to kill only game? HMMM, I wasn't aware of that technology. So let's make some sense out of this.

The AK is "programmed" to kill only people. All other rifles that aren't "assault Rifles" are programmed to kill only game. Now I understand!

Rep. Pete Geran, my congressman at the time and a staunch second amendment supporter, started his address to the Congress like this. "Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the Congress on the ugly rifle ban." I fell out of my chair laughing. Rep. Sensenbrenner made a point in commettee to show the difference between a Bennelli that old Potato nose (Clinton) used to hunt with and a Bennelli that was classified as an "assault shotgun". The difference, two parts. A pistol grip and magazine extension.

The best one was Feinstein in the Senate trying to put what looked like an AR15 mag in an AK. Stupid women is the one who got this mess started and didn't even take time to educate herself on what she was banning. One of the men had to show her which mag and how to put it in the gun. Then the stupid woman put her finger on the trigger.

What really pissed me off is the fact that when it came down to a vote, we were winning by one vote. There was a Rep. that could not make up his mind. The speaker, I can't remember who, held the gavel till that one person had voted yes on the ban! I understand this is a common practice. So we lost in the halls of Congress by one stinking vote!

If you are really serious about the assault rifle ban sunsetting, then call your elected officals. They do listen. Remind them that you vote and if they don't cast their vote to sunset the ban, you will not cast your vote their way!
Get behind the NRA, even if you don't agree with them and let them know how you feel.

FALers, we CAN make a difference is 2004. But we can't do it sitting on our butts hoping that somone else will do something. The term "GRASSROOTS" comes to mind here. At this time, we are 8000 strong. In 2004 we may be 10,000 strong. What a voice. Get out and do something.

Like the sign says:
"Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way!" Be a leader and get out and become active. Because if you don't do something, then you will have no right to whin aobut the ban not being repealed!

We lost the battle in congress but ONE vote. Are you going to let that happen again?

Just my .02 worth.

LAFAL
February 09, 2003, 16:25
http://www.af.mil/images/raptor.jpg

Nice looking bird.

Dorsai
February 09, 2003, 17:38
First, I don't know if the F-22 is worth the cost. It's a big hit to regularly lose one in training, which will happen. But, it's air to air capability should exceed that of the F-15, if it is allowed to fight the way it should.

The F-22 is stealthy, meaning unless the enemy sees it visually, he won't know its there. Check your air combat history...most pilots who get shot down never saw the guy who got them. Stealth allows our guy to ambush the enemy. Time will tell whether they are allowed to use this advantage. More often than not, our guys have to visually id the bogey before he is declared a bandit and they can engage. The F-22 isn't invisible so that removes that advantage.

The Raptor also has the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds, which means it can get there faster without having to use massive quantities of fuel in afterburner.

I don't know this for sure, but I don't think the Raptor has any air-to-ground capability. It ain't a mud mover. Consequently, it can't replace the F-15E Strike Eagle version. Since air-to-ground operations are the most hazardous, I don't think I'd want to risk $100million on mud missions anyway.

hippy
February 09, 2003, 17:43
I don't know what's with the brady bunch either, I mean I get that they want my guns. But it seems like they really believe that my auto loader spits out faster moving man killer bullets, and my lever action of equivelent or greater caliber only attacks deer. Despite Sir Isaac Newton's argument that, due to the fact that my auto loader must use energy to cyle my bolt, the projectile from said rifle will come out the muzzle slightly slower, all other factors being equal of course, to a bolt gun, lever gun, muzzle loader etc.

Anyway, I was just upset to see someone pissing on the raptor. Yes the gov. does silly things, and we don't NEED a super nifty $100 million air superiority fighter, but we do have to replace the 30yr old birds we have. Trust me, we do, they don't last forever. I wouldn't get on a 30yr. old 737 with 70,000 hours on the airframe, and I wouldn't ask that our armed forces fly aircraft with such high time. If you think I'm paranoid, go review NTSB crash findings of c-130 hercules being used to fight fires. Aluminum doesn't last forever, especially when it is cyclicly stressed to an appreciable point of it's yielding. Also 7075-t6 doesn't age really well, ask boeing. The point is, it has to be replaced, so why not fill the void with a few raptors, and replace the rest with the JSF. I agree that the OICW is a monstrosity, but doesn't the m-16 suck too, I know my ar is not my favorite rifle, and wouldn't want to carry it into battle.

On a new topic, should the 94 aw ban sunset without new legislation to fill in (which I will say is 50/50 in my estimation) do you think prices for currently banned rifles and acc. will drop? I.E. will I be able to afford a sig 550. I saw one yesterday for $7000. Thank God the streets are safe now from all those thugs with their $7000 swiss rifles.

freeride21a
February 09, 2003, 22:50
ok...this post calls for some photos....edwards airshow here in cali freakin rocks!

I didnt like the f22 at first(im like an old man and dont like change) but when I saw it fly personally a few years back..and then up close here...it is a beutiful aircraft.

the JSF was sweet as well!

(photos might load slow at first...they are being served off my home DSL UL is 40KB/s)

JSF
http://000buck.d2g.com/edwards/dcp_2548a.jpg

F22 front
http://000buck.d2g.com/edwards/dcp_2555a.jpg

F22 engine
http://000buck.d2g.com/edwards/dcp_2552a.jpg

F22 from behind
http://000buck.d2g.com/edwards/dcp_2549a.jpg

C-17 can do some amazing things...i believe he was fully loaded
http://000buck.d2g.com/edwards/dcp_2780a.jpg

1gewehr
February 10, 2003, 12:48
Government development projects are inherently wasteful. The more expensive the end product, the more likely that it will be grossly mis-managed.

The F22, while a beautiful bird, is incredibly expensive. It is also enormous! It really doesn't matter how fast or maueverable it is. The question is will it be cost-effective?

If someone attacks the US with aricraft, then the loss of several F22's versus getting an A-bomb in Portland, Oregon, will probably be worth it. But, if all we can afford is a dozen or so F22's, then it becomes less likely that they will be where we need them when they are needed. Conversely, if we have a thousand fighters of lesser capability, would they be able to stop the same attack? I don't have the answers, but our current process doesn't seem to provide adequate answers, either.

I truly believe that if we still had a competitive development process like that which gave us the P38, P47, P51, Corsair, and Hellcat simultaneously, then we would get better aircraft. Of course, our regulations have killed off most of those comapnies, so maybe we wouldn't get similar results.
1gewehr

jaimeshawn
February 10, 2003, 18:34
Speaking as the only guy on this thread - whose profile lists they are from Oregon - Portland/Multnomah County are extreme liberal territory. Trust me. This is where the granola heads that were tearing up Seattle a few years ago hide out - Animal Liberation Front central. You don't want to trade a couple $100 million fighters for people that want to destroy us! ;)

Seriously, you have a good argument. I thought one of best bang for the buck fighters was the F18, and we'd get more than 5 of those for one F22. That F22 may be a cool airplane, but is it 5X better?

hippy
February 11, 2003, 14:39
The f22 is an air superiority fighter, before you all go off on how useless they are because we are only going to buy 100 or so, consider what it's for. It's too replace the f15, that's is sole purpose, we don't have hoards of 15's around either. It is a status symbol as much as anything else. It's primary purpose in any conflict would be to go up against 20 of anything any other country has to offer. You can't replace the f15 eagle with an f18. It doesn't work that way, you can't replace one f15 with 10 f18s. The JSF is our new f16, f18, and harrier all in one. It retails for about 28-32 million. Comparable to the f18 in price, and will cost less to maintain thanks to commonality between three branches of the armed forces. As for competition, there were several companies competing for the JSF, including MD. MD lost in the prelimary stages and was then absorbed by boeing. Lockheed and Boeing were both given funding to create 2 flying examples of their proposed JSF. It was a close competition and in the end, lockheed won, many feel because their aircraft was able to meet all the performance objectives without having to be reconfigured between flights (i.e. take off, exceed mach 1, then land vertically). Boeing was overweight and had to strip the JSF of some its pieces to accomplish vertical landing. However, their latest version, which they didn't have time to produce, but would be selling to the gov. if they bought it would be 1500lb. lighter. Additionally the boeing JSF looked like a guppy with wings. Competition is alive and well. Additionally, all the aircraft you pointed out, the p-51, p-38, etc. were the result of need. War promotes design in ways that peacetime cannot. Look at what we had before WW2 started. We were years behind the germans, even the japanese zero was more maneuverable than anything we had. Lastly, as far as money goes, the JSF is a product of financial limitation. It is specifically intended to be a lower cost alternative to the 25yr. old f-16's, 10-15yr old f-18's and semi operable harriers it will replace. The f22 and JSF are not competitors, you're pitting apples against oranges. Do you want to live in a world where France, or Russia has the most advanced and powerful fighter on earth? Of course not, hence the f22. Do you want our air force, navy and marine corp to share 7 airplanes and take turns flying them? No, hence the JSF.

Major Tom
February 11, 2003, 17:19
We have less than 800 air superiority F-15s, mostly C 400/350 A models I guess, we where originally going to replace them with about 600 F-22s. DoD discovered long ago that this would have been too costly.

One old trick the government uses to hide the costs of a program is say you want to buy sixty widgets costing $2000 million total. Instead of just buying sixty in bulk, you spread things out and all of a sudden its fifteen widgets for $1000 million every year.

That's what we will do with the F-22, buy in small amounts every fiscal year. Cost per unit only will be $200 million. If we bought 300 in bulk (which is the number we eventually intend to field), we could get the cost down to $120 million, maybe even less, but I doubt it.

The real original reason for the F-22 program was to replace the F-15, not because the F-15 couldn't be upgraded, but because the first airframes would have worn out in 25 years at that time (now 12 years).

I won't argue with you that the F-22 is probably the very best air superiority fighter the world has ever seen. But everybody else's economy is in the stinker like us and they can't afford super-fighters either. The russians can't even afford A aircraft carrier or the Su-35. The chinese can't bsrely afford one.

The JSF is not as good as the F-22, but it's close and 1/7th the cost. It is certainly better than the F-15, Su-35, frog fighter, eurotrash fighter, or anything othe air superiority fighter currently out there as a viable option for our "enemies". You can't stick bombs on the F-22s external hardpoints, you can with the JSF. AND you can put a STOVL engine in it for $7 million more.

Sending up one F-22 is like sending up ten F-15s. If sending up one JSF is like sending up even five F-15s, then the choice is clear. That's why lockheed was awarded the JSF contract to, in case we scrubed the F-22 entirely.

Now if our government was restricted to its constitutionally limited role of defending our freedoms, mainly through protecting our land and sea borders, not seeking engagements and entanglements abroad... and we where all paying less than 10% in taxes. I'd say buy at least 2000 F-22s and 4000 F-35s to augment the F-15s and F-16s in standing federal militia use and shoot down the first hostile chinese, ruskie, saudi, israeli or bavarian illuminati aircraft that comes within 200 miles.

Potshot
February 12, 2003, 10:15
F-22 is definitely worth it. Bear in mind that the aircraft was born due to the fact that the F-15 platform was not expandable enough. Originally, the AF wanted to upgrage the engines in the F-15, but because major airframe revisions would be required it was decided that for the $$ to performance ratio it would be more effective to do a new airframe. F-22 is an amazing aircraft, it can do things at mil power that F-15s have to use max (AB) for. Also understand if you are taking on say 4-5 Su-27s at once (think Chinese) you NEED a much superior airplane to maintain air superiority.

Now considering what idiots they are, why on earth would anyone listen to the Brainless Brady Bunch on anything anyways?

racer766
February 12, 2003, 18:05
This is ludicrous. JSF and ATF are two completely different airplanes with completely different missions.

ATF = Kill everything the other guy sends up. Go home and drink beer. Oh yeah, it can go farther and a third faster over the distance than anything else. No one but USAF gets them. If you pick it up on radar the Air Force will want to talk to you.

JSF = Drop bombs. Shoot air to ground missiles. Launch off carriers. Land vertically on carriers. Shoot down whatever the other guy sends up. Build a bunch to sell to our "Friends" around the world. Short range, and have about 2/3 the payload of ATF. Not as stealthy.

They are NOT the same airplane and anyone trying to compare them doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

BTW, the only reason you "can't" put bombs on the ATF is that it hasn't been asked for yet. Originally the F-15 "couldn't" drop bombs either. Why would you want to throw away the stealth qualities of the plane by carrying bombs? The JSF was intended to drop bombs, and the stealth properties of the plane match the mission. Hanging a dozen iron pipes off the wing isn't the best way to achieve low observable.

BrenLover
February 12, 2003, 18:53
These are more than a match for F-16s, 18s, 15s etc etc. The only deciding factor is the ability of the pilots.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/pc7a26ce31e3f8017694700a188d18253/fca69035.jpg

The Su27/33s are among the most beautiful aircraft ever made. If looks could kill... The 33s have forward canards and thrust vectoring. If you think the original Su-27 was impressive in flight you should see the 33! Give one western engines and avionics and any fighter pilot would bust a nut if they got within 100yds of one!
With the exception of stealth, it is more than a match for the F-22.

SorryOciffer