Thread: Senators seek boost to F-22 fighter fleet

The C-130J is a tactical airlifter, not really relevant in this discussion.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

A C-5 surrounded by F-22s would be a very hard plane to be shot down, the C-5 would be able to bring in A LOT MORE,flying less sorties than the C-17 but providing fast support for ground troops.

...In the sort of rapid deployment necessitating lots of strategic airlift, most fighters are going to be tied up pounding the enemy, especially F-22s which are not particularly plentiful.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

yes you are right sure it will cost more, but we will have a specific aircraft for (A specific task in mind) to transport HEAVY loads reliably.

And the C-17 can't do it reliably? (Hint: there are more than twice as many C-17s in service compared to C-5s. The USAF disagrees with you.)

Originally Posted by Rossiman

The C-5s main goal would be to transport heavy loads in excess of 100 tons.

Which loads are these?

Originally Posted by Rossiman

So be it maybe we would have to redesign or even build a new aircraft for this job. But if that is what we have to do, then we have to do it.

OK. You can pay-pal your donations for the R&D costs to the US government. Several billion, preferably.

Are you even reading any of my posts? You can't magick away practicalities by saying "bah, we'll do it anyway."

Originally Posted by Rossiman

And I hate to argue with you about this, but i am afraid that it is indeed needed. The capacity to lift and bring heavy tanks, anywhere on the globe overnight. That is needed.

Using ships to transport MBT'S takes days to weeks, if we need to have a battalion of M1A2 SEP Abrams, and we need it fast, heavy airlift is the only way to go. What if we need a whole armored division do you think that sea transport is the logical answer... NO

We need the ability to Air transport heavy cargo like this in a moments notice.

Why? What threat exists or could exist in the next 15 years that we'd need a rapid-response armored division?

We certainly dont need that kind of deployment in the GWOT. There are only a couple of countries that we'd need to employ such firepower against, like Russia and China.

Just because we dont have a capability doesnt necessarily mean we NEED it.


Also we're not arguing, we're discussing. At most we're debating.

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.

I reread the thread just to be sure, now I am completely convinced that you are what in China we call a "bai chi" or someone who who isn't worth wasting food on. Colloquially that means retard. Don't bother responding because I won't waste time reading it.

Originally Posted by HKDan

what in China we call a "bai chi" or someone who who isn't worth wasting food on.

That, sir, is gold! I'm borrowing that.

Originally Posted by HKDan

I reread the thread just to be sure, now I am completely convinced that you are what in China we call a "bai chi" or someone who who isn't worth wasting food on. Colloquially that means retard. Don't bother responding because I won't waste time reading it.

Ya, and thats why in China you have slave labors making 2$ dollars a hour. Don't call me a retard, when i know a hell of a lot more than you about aviation. So in the American term we like to call it **** you.

Or in Italian vaffanculo puttana.

You should understand this one perfectly tiu nia ma chow hai.

In Arabic Bouse Tizi you get the point dont you.

And the grand finale for them all...... Liu mang Poq Gai

HKDan,

I reread the thread just to be sure, now I am completely convinced that you are what in China we call a "bai chi" or someone who who isn't worth wasting food on.

wrong "chi" although the definition is right, and the kid certainly is!

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

That, sir, is gold! I'm borrowing that.

I don't think that's quite what it means...

Not so much the 'bai chi' bit - I know enough insults in Romanian and I don't like unexplained foreign language insults anyway - but the expression in general...

Lol these types of post make my day.....

Be careful there. Revelling in people's reactions to your own idiocy is classic troll behaviour.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

Don't call me a retard, when i know a hell of a lot more than you about aviation.

You make a lot of assumptions.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

You make a lot of assumptions.

And from my earliest days in aviation the mantra has been 'Never assume. Check!'

Originally Posted by astralis

HKDan,



wrong "chi" although the definition is right, and the kid certainly is!

Whoops Guess thats what I get for never learning to read characters. My mother must be glowing with righteousness right now.

Glowering? :p (since we're correcting language)