Thread: Senators seek boost to F-22 fighter fleet

Originally Posted by Tronic

So the F22 is to take on IAF? )

No one but India will fly the MKI, and India will never field 2000+ of this bird; it is not there to take on the Raptor. F22 vs MKI is a very null comparison, they are not in the same class or even of the same generation.

I am just saying.... LOL nothing bad against the IAF cause i think that they are one of the finest trained Air forces in the world.

Originally Posted by Maxor

Airlift without air superiority at least locally is a terrible idea as you are merely loosing alot of men and equimpent in a rapid manner. Establishing air superiority is first then airlift though newer more capable AMC planes would be a big benifiet as the US current opperations scheduale is chewing through the service life of the current planes fairly quickly. A new superheavy lifter if it can be done realatively inexpensively and produced in large numbers would be good as would a complete reloading fo the tanker fleet. (which is also a fairly big portion of the airlift fleet.) . C-130's are nice but can't carry a MBT and are really not useful for transcontinential flight on a regular basis.

What do you think i have been arguing about this whole time lol.... We need a superlifter that can carry 200+tons like the Russian's. But first, we need to get are F-22 problem sorted out, how many are we going to buy, which squadrons there gonna be stationed at etc. Then we need to focus on buying new tankers,and redesign/update are current heavy lift fleet.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

We need a superlifter that can carry 200+tons like the Russian's.

You mean... the single An-225 built 20 years ago (and spent 10 years of that mothballed) that is getting one brother now that was started 20 years ago originally?
(and that's operated commercially btw, not militarily)

Originally Posted by Rossiman

But first, we need to get are F-22 problem sorted out, how many are we going to buy, which squadrons there gonna be stationed at etc.

This has been done for a while now. Its 183 Raptors with 2 squadrons of them at Langley, 2 at Elmendorf, 2 at Holloman, and one at Hickam. If you are interested in the reality of the Raptor program I suggest you start with the official AF site. Its Air Force Link - Home Everything else is pure speculation.

Originally Posted by HKDan

This has been done for a while now. Its 183 Raptors with 2 squadrons of them at Langley, 2 at Elmendorf, 2 at Holloman, and one at Hickam. If you are interested in the reality of the Raptor program I suggest you start with the official AF site. Its Air Force Link - Home Everything else is pure speculation.

If you where to read my whole thread you would know i already know this information. I have known this longer than you have, congress needs to up the amount of Raptors to have 10 or more squadrons.

Originally Posted by kato

You mean... the single An-225 built 20 years ago (and spent 10 years of that mothballed) that is getting one brother now that was started 20 years ago originally?
(and that's operated commercially btw, not militarily)

I am aware of this? I know this already your proving nothing to me, did i say we need there's no. I specifically stated we need the heavy lift capabilities that that brings. If you want to bring some "helpful" information to this thread then do so.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

We need something that can airlift 200+ tons or 2 MBT's. Imagine how much greater are capability would be..... don't the Russian's have a heavy transport that can lift in excess of 250 tons.... we need something like that lol.

Why do we need something like that? The heaviest thing we need airlifted as a priority thing is a combat-ready MBT, and the C-17 can do that, on short, poor runways to boot. It can also paradrop, meaning it can operate in pretty hairy environments. Anything bigger is going to require an aircraft with exponentially higher R&D costs, maintenance costs and combat vulnerability. All it will be able to do is airlift extraordinary cargoes - the non-priority sort of thing better served by sealift anyway - and possibly get you into the record books.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

But first, we need to get are F-22 problem sorted out, how many are we going to buy, which squadrons there gonna be stationed at etc.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

If you where to read my whole thread you would know i already know this information. I have known this longer than you have, congress needs to up the amount of Raptors to have 10 or more squadrons.

There's a huge disparity here. And for someone who makes the claim:

i am not one of those viable kid's that post useless nonsense to spread my "E-fame" lol.

you sure make a lot of assumptions and pick up a lot of attitude for little/no reason. Calm down and keep it a friendly discussion board. Flying off the handle every time someone replies to you (politely even!) isnt a good way to endear yourself to a community where you're a relatively new guy.

Edit: And realistically, we need at least 11 squadrons. 10 to be aligned with the AEFs, plus the 43rd at Tyndall.

You came into my post and called me a lier... and you wonder why i fly off.....

It's like being in the middle of a protracted COIN war over the world's liquid chocolate reserves between Delta-trained pink bunnies armed with blaster rifles and Scarlett Johansson clones armed with sticks, stones and Strykers. In other words, I have absolutely no idea what Rossiman is saying 98% of the time.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Why do we need something like that? The heaviest thing we need airlifted as a priority thing is a combat-ready MBT, and the C-17 can do that, on short, poor runways to boot. It can also paradrop, meaning it can operate in pretty hairy environments. Anything bigger is going to require an aircraft with exponentially higher R&D costs, maintenance costs and combat vulnerability. All it will be able to do is airlift extraordinary cargoes - the non-priority sort of thing better served by sealift anyway - and possibly get you into the record books.

Woah, first off to lift 2 MBT'S doesn't necessarily mean a bigger plane. It means however a stronger engine and the right Aerodynamics. Secondly, the C-17 is a great aircraft for what it does, but the amount of strain we are putting on that aircraft is bad in the long run. Yes, it is a verstile aircraft it can do many jobs. We need a heavy lifter though that's main objective is to lift HEAVY MBTS, HMMV'S, COUGARS, APCS and if we need to para drop troops into the battle it can do that to. With the right plane though, it will take off the stress that the C-17 is being pushed to.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

It's like being in the middle of a protracted COIN war over the world's liquid chocolate reserves between Delta-trained pink bunnies armed with blaster rifles and Scarlett Johansson clones armed with sticks, stones and Strykers. In other words, I have absolutely no idea what Rossiman is saying 98% of the time.

Please elaborate more, except this time without the blaster rifles and pink bunnies lol.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

You came into my post and called me a lier... and you wonder why i fly off.....

Go back and reread it. I was warning you to be careful what you post on the internet. You dont think these boards are monitored?

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Go back and reread it. I was warning you to be careful what you post on the internet. You dont think these boards are monitored?

Yes, i know for a fact they are and i already apologized about it to you and the others. I am not gonna post classified information, will not HAPPEN.