F22 crash?

[TimT]

ok I did a search....

. Since the middle of the Korean War, not a single U.S. Army soldier has been killed by enemy aircraft or helicopter attack in all the wars and engagements fought since that time. Needless to say, this is a tradition that can only be maintained in the future if American forces continue to dominate the air over their opponents, and, to that end, the United States Air Force is pursuing development of the F-22 Raptor fighter, as the key to air dominance in the 21st century.

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers/airpowerinperip.htm

Don't take this a callous, but I'm surprised, that there have been no ground casualties from air attacks since the middle of the Korean War... I know we have had total air domination since Viet Nam

[m21sniper]

It is a truly amazing feat.

[Don Plumley]

RIP to the raptor driver.

[Don Plumley]

I'll post a link to the article on air superiority over on parf.

[charleskieffner]

a ROUSH built P-51 MUSTANG lands! HOLY BAT POO! am i dreaming??? WTF? this is 1 of 3 P-51's still flying on the planet that actually fought in world war II. the others are memorex phonies. this was mfg. in 1944, based in england and flew over normandy on june 6th 1944. hence the black white d-day ID markings.

they dont get any cleaner than this one !


i did ask " where are the .50 cals ?"


im still having multiple orgazms over this one!

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by kimlangley7

M21 sniper;
No US soldier has been lost to air attack since the Korean war.

Tell that to the sailors of the USS Liberty that was strafed in 1973[?] by the Israelis.. [oh , theymade a mistake].. also > I think the North Koreans strafed the USS Pueblo - wounded or killed some of our people

Recognize your point though.. F-22 is a necessary piece of hardware in our arsenal... fantsatic platform...

The Navy typically performs their own defense against air assets while at sea. Sniper was referring to the air superiority provided to ground troops.

Tough break about tha test pilot.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

...If we go to war with Russia or China air superiority won't matter for long; the nuclear tipped ICBMs will arrive on the scene far sooner that any jet fighter.

Jim
Assume the potential exists that we might actually actually have a near peer war that does not go nuclear...With a 10-15 year development time, after hostilities begin..it is too late to find out the enemy has more capable weapons.

[rouxroux]

Originally Posted by speeder

It was not my cousin, who heads the F-22 demo team and flies the plane at air shows.

I saw one come through BAFB a few weeks back...I sure hope they have one here for a demo at their yearly airshow in May.

[jyl]

200 additional F22s is, say, $25BN. I think that would be a good use of money.

Originally Posted by Don Plumley

The current issue of the Atlantic has a great article about the value of air superiority and how we are losing our edge. More to the point, the continued reductions in the planned F-22 fleet is going to create an irrecoverable hole. Basically for any conflict we've been involved with since Vietnam, we've controlled the skies which allows a degree of freedom on the ground that is quite valuable. But other 4th generation A/C and retrofitted 3rd generation A/C are presenting a genuine threat to the F-15. At some point, some punk nation with some cheap retrofitted 3rd gen A/C are going to try to show their strength.

We've never lost an F-15 flown by the USAF against another fighter. Simply amazing.

I hope the raptor pilot is okay and safe. My buddy the F-15 group commander is at Nellis, wonder what he knows about this...

[Jim Sims]

"have a near peer war that does not go nuclear."

All the near peers that could threaten air superiority have nuclear weapons - when in the history of war did the losing side in a near peer war hold back from using effective weapons? Why did we desperately and immediately resupply Israel when they appeared to be losing during the Yom Kippur war?

It is road side bombs and IEDs that are killing US troops not Taliban fighter planes or Russian submarines. Current military spending priorities don't meet current needs. 150 million dollars can put a lot of "boots on the ground" with proper equipment and support for the current mission.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

"have a near peer war that does not go nuclear."

All the near peers that could threaten air superiority have nuclear weapons - when in the history of war did the losing side in a near peer war hold back from using effective weapons? Why did we desperately and immediately resupply Israel when they appeared to be losing during the Yom Kippur war?

It is road side bombs and IEDs that are killing US troops not Taliban fighter planes or Russian submarines. Current military spending priorities don't meet current needs. 150 million dollars can put a lot of "boots on the ground" with proper equipment and support for the current mission.

There has yet to be a true near-peer war where both sides had sufficient nuclear weapons to ensure mutually-assured desruction.

Concerning ourself only about IEDs and the Taliban puts us into the same bind we found ourselves in in the desert...wearing jungle fatigues and driving tanks and lightweight humvees. We always seem to prepare to fight the last war, not the next. Unfortunately our enemies seem to change and they tend to adapt...

We can put more "boots on the ground"...but we have no one to wear them. Force multipliers are the only resort.

[Embraer]

[QUOTE=charleskieffner;4568005]a ROUSH built P-51 MUSTANG lands! HOLY BAT POO! am i dreaming??? WTF? this is 1 of 3 P-51's still flying on the planet that actually fought in world war II. the others are memorex phonies. this was mfg. in 1944, based in england and flew over normandy on june 6th 1944. hence the black white d-day ID markings.

they dont get any cleaner than this one !


i did ask " where are the .50 cals ?"


is this really the place for this? i'm surprised you didn't make an advertisment for H&K while you were at it

[charleskieffner]

[QUOTE=Embraer;4568208][QUOTE=charleskieffner;4568005]a ROUSH built P-51 MUSTANG lands! HOLY BAT POO! am i dreaming??? WTF? this is 1 of 3 P-51's still flying on the planet that actually fought in world war II. the others are memorex phonies. this was mfg. in 1944, based in england and flew over normandy on june 6th 1944. hence the black white d-day ID markings.

they dont get any cleaner than this one !


i did ask " where are the .50 cals ?"


is this really the place for this? i'm surprised you didn't make an advertisment for H&K while you were at it[/QUOTE

i didnt try to do this here. it just happened, as i thought i clicked "post new topic" while fumbling with my hk 21e safety and linking belts and reloading more ammo that arrived via the black 5 ton trucks.

it is aviation related, it is a fighter, and i am saddened as anyone if not more so about the loss of a high asset fighter and its pilot. the aviation community is a lot smaller than you even realize. as with all crashes be they civilian or miltary, sooner or later i will get the ntsb/faa report on it across my puter screen. ie. the day after the pilatus crashing in bozeman, montana killing all aboard, a pilatus owner and i both surmise that the pilot either had a medical or catastrophic failure of "something" that led to the crash. it sure as hell wasnt icing on the wings because of the bellows installed on leading edges of pilatus aircraft. their stall speed is roughly 61 knots and at that point it goes into "shaker" mode to alert pilot to impending serious problems. soooooooo..........there ya have it. crucify me.

[Embraer]

no big deal....it just seemed out of place.

btw: i do realize how small aviation is. i'm an airline pilot/cka.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by jyl

200 additional F22s is, say, $25BN. I think that would be a good use of money.

Considering that the stimulus is supposed to put Americans back to work (yeah right) it would be a damn good use of money. They are built here after all. Of course, our fools in Washington also seem hell bent on destroying general and business aviation, and we build most planes in America too.

[jyl]

Looks to me like $150MM buys only about 300 additional heads for the Army.

The Army projects it will need $40 billion annually above current spending levels once a planned 74,200 troops are added, according to a draft service report for the Obama transition team.

The report says the planned force of 1.1 million soldiers would require a budget of “$170 billion to $180 billion per year to sustain,” well above the 2009 budget of about $140 billion.

A draft copy of the 43-page document, labeled “predecisional” and dated November 2008, was obtained by Defense News, a sister publication of Army Times.

In early 2007, the Bush administration proposed swelling the Army, as well as the Marine Corps, by early next decade. Congress approved the plan. Army officials have hinted for months that a larger force will require a bigger annual budget. What has been missing, however, are specific cost estimates like those included in the transition paper.

Naturally, with the grow-the-Army plan, the U.S. will need personnel dollars and extra dollars for equipping, said one Army official familiar with service planning.

Independent defense budget analysts have estimated that just recruiting and training 10,000 soldiers costs $1.2 billion a year. The entire proposed increase is expected to cost about $80 billion through 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office and independent budget analysts.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/army_obama_memo_122208w/

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

"have a near peer war that does not go nuclear."

All the near peers that could threaten air superiority have nuclear weapons - when in the history of war did the losing side in a near peer war hold back from using effective weapons? Why did we desperately and immediately resupply Israel when they appeared to be losing during the Yom Kippur war?

It is road side bombs and IEDs that are killing US troops not Taliban fighter planes or Russian submarines. Current military spending priorities don't meet current needs. 150 million dollars can put a lot of "boots on the ground" with proper equipment and support for the current mission.

[charleskieffner]

the LAST TIME i made good bucks in aerospace was during the reagan era.............any questions???????

[stevepaa]

Originally Posted by speeder

The pilot was not OK, he was killed. It was not my cousin, who heads the F-22 demo team and flies the plane at air shows. It's been a tense few hours.

Pilot was David Cooley, test pilot for Lockheed Martin.
"David, 49, was an outstanding pilot who joined Lockheed Martin in 2003 after a 21-year career with the U.S. Air Force."

Condolences to his family and friends.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

"The F-22 is the tip of our airborne spear. It will do the most dangerous and most important jobs (Air supremacy and SEAD) that allow the rest of the force to function properly.'

Yeah, it will do a "bang up" job of suppressing the North Korean, Iranian, Al Queda and Taliban air forces. It may also be useful if the Kligons attack.

If we go to war with Russia or China air superiority won't matter for long; the nuclear tipped ICBMs will arrive on the scene far sooner that any jet fighter.

The NORKS and Iranians both have large pretty capable airforces.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

"have a near peer war that does not go nuclear."

All the near peers that could threaten air superiority have nuclear weapons - when in the history of war did the losing side in a near peer war hold back from using effective weapons? Why did we desperately and immediately resupply Israel when they appeared to be losing during the Yom Kippur war?

In both Korea and Vietnam the losing side did not use nukes. In fact when the US was thrown back after the Chinese invasion when MacArthur wanted to use nukes he was not allowed either.

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

It is road side bombs and IEDs that are killing US troops not Taliban fighter planes or Russian submarines. Current military spending priorities don't meet current needs. 150 million dollars can put a lot of "boots on the ground" with proper equipment and support for the current mission.

The guys still need air support. An F-22 drops bombs as good as anything else, and can actually get from it's on station location to bombs release faster than any other asset in the US arsenal.

Supercruise baby.