So who you gonna use it on first? China maybe? N Korea? Iran? Actually I suppose it's first casualty was domestic spending programs...
True, But a billion dollars for ten planes is...excessive.. I agree with the principal though. I wouldn't be sitting here on my wireless network, staring at my 24" plama monitor if it wasn't for R+D which probably originated from the military or the space program.Toshi said:
Pshhht.Changleen said:
You do understand what that is don't you?bmxr said:
Yes very impressive but for example the Australian air force flies F-18s and F111s and pretty much rules the skies in SE Asia. Where is the opposing technolgy coming from? Not from Russia that I can see. China? I don't think so. I think your guys have got their priorities a bit out of whack. You guys rule the air no doubt. I think your billions have got to go in other places where you are obviuosly deficient. Subs is one that stands out. Special forces is another.bmxr said:
...another example of military spending on "war toys" that has great potential for expanded military and civilian uses. A remote-controlled B-2 stealth bomber; the next logical progression after the Predator UAV.DRB said:
Mig 29?, SU 37? Russia's latest generation of fighters have superior air to air capabilities to most of our fighters. There was a recent competition in India where U.S. fighters did not do so hot. The F/A 22 may cost a butt ton, but nothing else in the air has its capabilities.valve bouncer said:
Thank you. My point exactly!Zark said:
The latest diesel electric subs are more than a match for your guys. Read up mate.Zark said:
Not necessarily. In the defensive/local theatre role, the diesels have always done an incredible job...electric is silent, for sure. However, in the larger scope of things, in the global context, the nuke subs are far more sustainable, useful, and deadly.valve bouncer said:
No doubt Mike in the strategic sense the nuke is the king no doubt. But how long does one of of Kim Il Sungs electrics have to be undetected to get close enough to the West Coast to launch something unspeakable. There's your weak point mate and your guys know it.MikeD said:
The Mig 29 came into service in '82, but still has a bigger envelope than mostvalve bouncer said:
I'm not either Mike but it seems your guys are putting all your eggs in the nuke sub basket. Do you guys actually have any electrics... I'm not being a smart arse, I don't know..... what's happening to counter that threat?MikeD said:
Best. Post. Ever!DRB said:
The Mig-29 and Su-27/33/35/37 have a "look to shoot" capablity that our jets don't - the pilot can que the missile in the general direction of the target, almost to the point that the missile can turn 180° right after launch. Our jets tend to have a better BVR (beyond visual range) capability when compared to the Russian jets. The US is trying to catch up and the F-22 will bridge that gap but the Russians had this capaibility (look to shoot) since the first Gulf war.Zark said:
Wow, the Russians know how to built planes huh? Glad the cold war didn't become hot seeing that. Who has bought it?Zark said:
Too bad we don't carpet bomb anymore........Silver said:
neaky:
golgiaparatus said:The F-22's engine is expected to be the first to provide the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound for an extended period of time without the high fuel consumption characteristic of aircraft that use afterburners to achieve supersonic speeds. It is expected to provide high performance and high fuel efficiency at slower speeds as well.
.
This bit interested me because this is what killed Concorde, fuel costs. I hope this technology can be applied commercially. Maybe when I'm 70
I agree, 100%, that the US is too interested in spending money on technology that looks cool while lots of underlying issues with the military remain. But I don't think we can stop development, and the V22 has been in the pipeline for a long time. Edit: I also think we build stuff that's too complex and touchy, indeed. A4s and A6s...gone away, sniff sniff...Abrams are a nightmare of maintenance and logistics...our rifles are relatively maintenance-intensive.Silver said:
Tell that to the Taliban.zod said:Too bad we don't carpet bomb anymore........
No, I don't think we do at the moment...I think there is or was one in use for training, but that's it. I wouldn't be shocked if some contractor was working on a diesel 'homeland defense' sub, though. Not to say that you couldn't build a nuke sub to do the same job, though...just more $$$.valve bouncer said:
That's the whole point Mike, spend creatively, not willy nilly. What percentage of the development costs that went into the F22 if they'd have been spent on better intel might have prevented 9/11. Stupid question I know as it's unanswerable but I can't help thinking.MikeD said:
I'm gonna slap you in the face in a minute.MikeD said:
Exactly my point, why waste money trying to build a nuke sub if an electric can do the job better. Bite the bullet, get 20 Collins class subs to guard the coast.
The Concorde had 4 Rolls Royce Olympus engines which are turbojet designs -high fuel comsuption - the P&W F119 and GE F120 engines are low bypass turbo fan engines - much better fuel economy than a turbojet.This bit interested me because this is what killed Concorde, fuel costs. I hope this technology can be applied commercially. Maybe when I'm 70
JDAMs.zod said:Too bad we don't carpet bomb anymore........
I wish you guys had have done as good on Japan as you did on Germany. Everything there looks lovely and twee, Japan...well, Japan looks like a bomb hit it.zod said:
