What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
122 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Must...resist...singing...HIGHWAY TO THE DANGER ZONE!!!!!
- DerTeufel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7All due respect. Most of the people bitching about this fighter have ZERO understanding of what it's all about. The only flying they've done is in economy class (ok, maybe first class). They've certainly never pulled anything than more than 4g's and they sure as ***** have never had a double digit SAM paint them from 250 miles away. They see "Price tag! Evil military!"
Overkill!? Nobody who's ever fought in a war wants anything but. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You know why we added this to the arsenal? Because we ***** can, and that is what America is all about. Don't like it? Move to France.
- digglugg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3does anyone on digg read current, or at least recent, events? seriously... the strategic focus of every major engagement of the past 15 years has been air superiority. think iraqi no fly zone, kuwait, bosnia... you remember bosnia right? the war with barely no casualties... anyone? that's because it was fought from 50,000ft in a cockpit. anyways... i remember news segments from the early 80's about jets that could fly at altitudes higher than the altitude of a shoulder launched rocket could reach. there was outcry everywhere about the necessity but considering the current events, you know - everyone and their brother owns and fires a sholder lauched rocket these days. I am extremely glad that these types of craft were created then and this raptor was created now, for the future threat.
- wthulhu, on 08/29/2009, -0/+220 Years huh? You guys thought microsoft was slow in releasing updates.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If the USA invested that much money in spreading peace, the world would be a wonderful place.
The world will never be a fully peaceful place, fighting and conflict is human nature. Using AARAM's and such it does not matter if the enemy can see the plane because it can engage at 100miles. The infared missiles are vunerable to countermeasures, and heat signature reducing designs. - breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ chriskzoo"You know why we added this to the arsenal? Because we ***** can, and that is what America is all about. Don't like it? Move to France."
I agree with you totally!!! You know why we invaded Iraq? Because we can! You know why the US government spies on its own citzens? Because it can! You know why Hitler killed millions of innocent people? Because he could!
Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. The money to build and buy these jet fighters came directly out of YOUR pocket. Think about that. And as rich a country as we are, our money is most certainly finite as evidenced by all the other worthwhile projects that are perpetually underfunded. Lord knows I am thankful that the United States has a super powerful military that keeps us safe, but along with great power comes great responsibility. I appreciate your patriotism, but you have to learn that issues are much more complex than what you see on the surface. This message is not an attack on you, it's just a little friendly advice. - ConEEE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love how some commentors have stated it'll be perfect for any future wars with China over Taiwan. Gung ho idiots.
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why do so many people here think that everyone is either a looney liberal or a member of the vast right wing conspiracy? Just because a person thinks that this new plane is wasteful doesn't mean he thinks that we should hand destroy all our weapons. And just because a person believes that this jet fighter is a wise decision doesn't mean that he thinks that we should invade every other country to create the united states of earthica. When you push people in this categories it just shows your own ignorance. I don't know why it's so hard for people to be in the thoughtful middle. Here are my views:
America as dominant military power = good
Use of limit American dollars on a new jet fighter = questionable
Welfare without limits = bad
Not giving welfare for a limited time hardship that if unaided would result in permanent hardship = bad
See where I'm going with this? - eschatonik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jeesus! All you clowns complaining about this being "old news" should read the frickin blurb and realize that the story isn't it's existance, rather that it joined the U.S. combat fleet on Thursday (yesterday). Sheesh.
- scottatdrake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We debating the wrong thing here. What we should be asking is, Are ALL reporters complete f***ing idiots? What in the hell does this mean:
"Raptor is twice as reliable and three times more effective than the F-15C Eagle it is replacing"
Twice as reliable? Three times more effective? What kinds of metrics are those? Where does he talk about "Half as pretty as the other" and "Four times as fun to fly?" - Toallpointswest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good this fighter is LONG overdue.. it's time we pushed the aging F-15/16's out to pasture and got with the 21st Century.
- squaat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lynxpro, you mind seems intent on dividing everything into us and them. Democracy vs communist, the haves vs the have nots. Remember that not everything is black or white, there are many shades in between.
I think your reasoning that hightech military projects == better for everyone is flawed. Just because the military invented it doesn't mean that the only way to discover it. Surely if you pured as much money into other non-violent research you'd get similar results.
I don't aggree with you lumping in NASA with the military. For mine the reason NASA is okay is that it doesn't have the primary goal of being a more efficient killing machine. There goal is to discover and explore, not kill and invade.
I dunno I just don't like your thinking, you've de-humanised the homeless and poor, to the point of saying that helping them does nothing for society. WTF? isn't an integral part of human society to help those less fortunate than yourself?
Dude you need to stop thinking that might is right, people like you ensure that violence and oppression prevail. For mine people with similar opinions as your self add nothing for the greater good of society. - randylovin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Military equipment like this will NEVER be used for their intended purposes. EVER.
If we end up in a military conflict against a nation which actually has the ability to counter this plane, chances are that they're advanced enough that they have nuclear weapons. In such a case, the war will be fought with the nuclear weapons (and everyone will be dead before these planes reach their destination).
They're building this plane for the same reason that, after making one thousand nuclear bombs, we built another thousand. And after that, we built ANOTHER thousand. And so on and so forth. It makes no sense. All it does is waste money."
What are you smoking?
Presence of nukes =! Automatic use of nukes - valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why all the Liberal bashing? I am a Liberal. I think this fighter is important. Sure it is expensive up front - but so are all weapons systems. It will cost less down the road, long term. And a strong military *is* important. Better to design and build the weapons when we can, than wait unil we desperately need them and it is too late. (I am an Air Force veteran)
However, I don't think our weapons, soldiers, and military should be used in such an arbitrary way. We should not be in Iraq.
Do I want health care, education, and a nice environment? Sure. But I don't have a problem with military spending in general... But Iraq does suck.... - dbarbour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First off, it's now the F/A-22A as in fighter/attack. Two, overall operational costs will be LOWER than that required to maintain our current fleet of F-15s. Two maintainers can do with the F/A-22 what takes an entire groundcrew to do with the F-15.
Further, there are credible threats on the horizon. Specifically China. With the money their government has, it wuoldn't be difficult for them to purchase an advanced fighter such as the Typhoon and deploy it in opposition to our fighters. Yes, the Typhoon is developed by nations friendly to the US, but things change, boys. It's always good to be prepared. - uacheesehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*sigh* ..must topics like this really bring out liberal rhetoric?
- DaedalusvX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How do you know its the most high-tech fighter yet? That's a stupid thing to say.
How would you compare the tech in the Joint Strike Fighter, the Raptor and the Typhoon? It's an impossible and worthless exercise."
No, it's not. The Raptor is far and away the most advanced fighter in terms of raw flight/engine performance, onboard software, maneuverability and tie-in to the rest of the United States air force. This isn't an OS platform debate; past the spec sheet, there is no room for debate.
And to whoever suggested the YF-23 should have been chosen instead, why in the hell would that have made sense? It was less maneuverable and slower, while being slightly more stealthy. Radar can be adapted to new stealth tech faster than jets can be made more stealthy. I don't know about you, but if I get spotted by radar, I want to be in the plane with the best chance of evading missiles. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The F-22 is designed to replace an entire fleet of aging aircraft that each accomplish a different role. The cost of each individual F-22 pales in comparison to the yearly maintenance costs associated with maintaining our current fleet of F-14s/F-15s/FA-18s, the three fighter/bomber models that the F-22 is designed to replace. You have to realize that all of these fighters are almost fourty years old. If they were cars, you'd have to have a collector's license to drive them on the road.
The F-22 outperforms all of our current fighters, whether it is performing fleet defense, interception, or attack roles. In combat, the F-22 is capable of engaging multiple targets before even being detected. There was a trial dogfight some time back where a wing of three F-22s faced almost 12 F-16s of the Irsraeli Air Force. Not a single F-16 scored a hit before all were "shot down." This is another benefit of the F-22: for any engagement, less fighters are required to complete the mission.
As much as I hate government waste, the F-22 really is about SAVING money in the long run. - bullfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's old news as the raptor has been known to be coming for some time. As to why it is only being deployed now as to when it was perceived to be need - it takes a very long time - years to go from drawing board to prototype to production for aircraft. Most of the aircraft you see as new now were on the in 1980.
As for the cost, the also is a result of those years of development. Know the the stealth fighter now seen as an ooo and ahhh thing was on the boards in the late 70's and was even let slip by Jimmy Carter as being on the boards. - NidStyles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The F-22 is more than just a fighter developed 20 years ago. The technology, and the process to make the super-cruise jet engines that allow above mach 1 cruise speeds without the use of afterburners is what held it back. It took 20 years to have the sufficient technology to build the engines for this jet.
*If we end up in a military conflict against a nation which actually has the ability to counter this plane, chances are that they're advanced enough that they have nuclear weapons. In such a case, the war will be fought with the nuclear weapons (and everyone will be dead before these planes reach their destination).*
Hmm, you mean like Korea or Viet Nam? How about Cuba, or Panama? That's right, we never fought against the Chinese or the Soviets in Korea or Viet Nam. Not officially at least. Lest we forget the whole Cuban missile crisis, and the invasion of Panama while they were working to purchase arms from the former Soviet Union. - Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Valkraider, you sound more like a "moderate Democrat" than a self-professed "liberal" (modern American definition).
Myself on the other hand I would consider a "fiscal conservative with libertarian social views" as long as such programs are not wasted on the undeserving and without sacrificing national defense. For example, if you cut out illegal immigration - especially here in California - you could move the society to a single payer health care system, or a modified single payer system which would be fiscally sound, cut costs, and more importantly, cut the explosion of cost on the corporate side for health care which is causing corporate flight and sub-contracting which is hurting our country's economy. Instead of giving handouts and encouraging panhandling, you sentence panhandlers to 10 year military service sentences. Likewise, you legalize marijuana and free people held in the prisons on bogus marijuana charges. For non-rapists and non-murderering criminals who are incarcerated on non-marijuana charges, you commute their sentences to 10 and 20 year (or lifetime) military service sentences. That's the way to punish criminals properly without having to shell out $40,000 to $60,000 on annual incarceration costs per prisoner and in return, the society gets an expendable military force to throw at enemies on the battlefield. Hell, why not make a decoy squad filled with (obviously guilty) child molesters to draw out insurgent forces to waste their ammo on and then the real forces come in and liquidate the insurgents? Or, you could clear a minefield with those said pedophiles instead of protecting them in solitary confinement in the prisons.
What would we end up with? Our enemies defeated, affordable social benefits for our society, and probably 1 million less criminals and bottom feeders. Hey, it worked for Rome! - Javali, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Trust me guys, this is one of the very few things that actually makes sense in today's USAF.
- Unless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1... can't we all just get along?
- BloodyRids, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I, like many of you, hope that this plane is never needed. But, if it is able to protect the U.S. in an air conflict, and/or protect a pilots life, it would be worth every penny.
Whether we are fighting the Russians over Europe or not, our military has to be updated to ensure the protection of the United States. I for one am glad to spend my hard earned money on protecting my way of life. - schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We don't even NEED it now. Sure, it's the deadliest thing flying, but at $200M+ per plane it better be. Given its costs and the current & expected threats 20 years out, it can't be justified.
Put the money into the JSF, upgrades to the F15 and F16 and provide pilots with a lot more training. - MichaelW2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Does the word "overkill" leave a bad taste in your mouth?
I am still puzzled why we wasted 20 years wondering whether to add this plane to our arsenal or not. I guess we are about to do some serious butt kicking against a country that we hate.
If anyone can give me a good reason why we just NOW added this plane instead of when we actually NEEDED it then I would be more than grateful. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I for one welcome our new American overlords...
- macslut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Others have cast it as the weapon of choice for any future U.S. conflict with China, for instance over Taiwan."
Translation: North Korea
I'm hoping they're only actually used by the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds. - jbrocket99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We can't go to war with China, who will make our iPods and computer parts?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that's good... because the Indian Air Force apparently handed our ass to us in the latest round of Cope India. Seems the F-16/F-15s don't do as well agains Su-30s and Mirage-2000s as we thought they might have.
- Lord_oftheTrons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I remember playing a F-22 Raptor Flight Sim game about in the late 90's. About time they got this thing out.
- dbarbour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If the USA invested that much money in spreading peace, the world would be a wonderful place." Blah blah blah. When are you hippies going to understand that humans are a combative race? Always have been, always will be. We didn't become the dominant form of life on this planet trying to get all the other animals to be peaceful. We *****' killed and ate them. We killed other humans who were keeping us down. That's what life does. Accept it and live with it.
- Schmitty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Squaat, it seems to me that humans as a race are violent in nature. Certainly, as an individual we are intelligent beings. But put us in a group, or give us mood altering substances (alcohol, pot, coke, etc.), and we revert to the most basic instincts. You see fangs in the kind face you once thought you knew. The only thing we really can do is try and correct bad situations with diplomacy instead of violence. This is why the planet isn't a smoking radioactive ashtray right now. Make no mistake, there are people out there that will kill, maim, and otherwise violate you, simply because of something passing through their mind. Could you stop them? If not you, then who? Those who are willing to put their life on the line so you can feel safe. Not just those in the military. The police do this every day. Sure, you can argue the system isn't perfect. But it's the best we've got. And I for one am thankful for it.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Hmmm, I really don't like the fact that my taxes are paying for this.
I dont like my taxes paying for other peoples welfare and social security but oh well, I would pay more in taxes if they would buy more of these. But its ok for China to mass an army, becuase if we ever have to go to war with them you know we want our guys flying F4 Fantoms. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To all the people complaning about the cost of a fighter - how much money is a pilot's life worth? Recent exercises have shown that the F-15 and -16 are losing their edge. I'm glad that we've developed a replacement for the aging F-15, even though it may seem unnecessary at this moment. Keep in mind, in the late 1930's the thought of needing to spend money on defense was the farthest thing on anyone's mind. But look what happens in 1939. Hitler begins rampaging through Europe, and at the end of 1941, the war reaches the US. Threats can arise without warning, and by the time we see the threat, it's too late to develop something like this to respond to it. This is an excellent way to be prepared.
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is the baddest jet fighter ever. Too bad it has basically no purpose. Actually it's a good thing that it has no purpose, but it's a bad thing that we had to invests so much in it.
- lakai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The only way to justify the cost of these new fighters is the knowledge gained from developing them, which can be used in future aircraft. The f-15 and f-16 are both over 20 years old already while technologies in raptor and jsf are about 10 years old. Our tax dollars pay for not only developing these aircraft, but to delvelop them in ways they can be manufactured cheap, and quick so they can be sold to allied nations.
this is probably the last generation of frontline attack fighters. all the latest x-planes now are all controlled remotely.
the Air-to-air capability of the f-22 is not all that superior. It still has to turn on its radar to aquire targets at long range which the plane was designed for (which can easily be detected ) by enemies, while russian sukoi fighters and mig-29's have a passive infrared missiles which can not be detected. Either way, In a close combat dogfight with newer russian and us aircraft, only tactics and skill can determine the winner.
Even with all this aircraft is capable of.. If war against china were to come, I dont think it would even make a difference, considering the numbers of old AND modern aircraft they pack in their arsenal - MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Go read the specs on the plane, and watch it in action on TV. It's simply amazing. They throw it around like a small italian sports car. Last time I watched them work with it at low speeds, the pilot was tumbling it around in the air like nothing I have seen. It's also cool that it can cruise at supersonic speeds, without afterburners. - velvetshark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Military equipment like this will NEVER be used for their intended purposes. EVER.
If we end up in a military conflict against a nation which actually has the ability to counter this plane, chances are that they're advanced enough that they have nuclear weapons. In such a case, the war will be fought with the nuclear weapons (and everyone will be dead before these planes reach their destination).
Ilyag's comments not very bright. Just because two nuclear capeable nations have a squabble, doesn't mean it goes nuclear. China got the bomb in '64, and the People's Republic and the Soviets were squabbling in '69. Lots of people died, but no nukes went off. - gandhii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Three words:
Military Industrial Complex
The who, what, how and why all in one. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"OK i must be out of it, wince when have we been on unfriendly terms with China?
and why will we be going to war with them?
also if we do go to war against a nation of 1 BILLION people....well the only way we could hop to win is by deploying millions of kill bots with a high kill counter"
The point is we need stuff like this because we could not win a ground war vs. china. The conflict with china would most likely stem from them invading Taiwan - they are mass sing their armies at the moment.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20050626-122138-1088r.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/6/1/85312.shtml
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050217-114812-3737r.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12756099.htm
Just a few sources of their buildup. When others are massing why should we disarm? In this world you are never safe so never act like it, a point perfectly illustrated on 9/11 - dbarbour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As for the troops on the ground being short of body armor while our jets cost $130M apiece, take that up with the Army. Yes, they all fall under the DoD, but remember that the individual branches get their own budgets.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Why is the US so hell bent on being the dominant military force?"
To control the entire planet through direct or indirect means... Why else? Someone has to take charge for the human race against our common alien threat. Don't you worry though other US friendly countries have a limited say in what goes on (or they can at least say what they think about it). - bionicpill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From what I've heard it might actually be cheaper than what we currently have in the long run since one of these planes can easily take out a squadron of older fighters on it's own. Not that we have air to air combat anymore, and our troops on the ground are short body armor. But who really cares about logic anyway ;)
- warped, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They pitted a squadron of raptors against a squad of the best trained F-16 pilots. The F-16's were beaten in every scenario. In fact one pilot commented that most times they were taken down before they could even see where the raptors were coming from. They even tested these melee's without stealth and other advances in the raptors. Their comments on this were it only prolonged the F-16 kills a little longer.
Trust me, this plane is the best thing to happen in the USAF in quite some time. - gollux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So, how much of the electronics is made in China?
- opennet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0do not forget the refrain- HIGHWAY TO THE DANGERZONE!!!! (WITH FEELING)
- captainjy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The US is evil, Russia will outsell it! Another crappy pos. Oh wait, I thought this was another Xbox 360 vs. PS3 or IE vs. FF. My bad....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is