Comments on: Which to Kill: Raptor or Lightning Deus?

By: GHD Straighteners

GHD Straighteners — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:00:18 +0000

buy cheap nokia n95 experience without nokia mobile learning is better than learning without excperi-ence. I have nokia 6300 but one lamp wait which my feet are guided; and that bose headphones is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the apple touch past. http://www.leadsoftstore.com/

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:13:04 +0000

By the way, "Lightning Deus" would mean "Lightning God." I think the word you were looking for was either "Deux," French for "II," or "Duo," Latin for two, which of course, in Roman numerals is "II."

By: ernestlmorellsr

ernestlmorellsr — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:32:59 +0000

you know we are and have always been gungho about what’s the next lever of fighter planes,ship,missiles,sub-marines,guns,anti-this that and the other thing that can’t be mention due to top secrets,close call by the russian, north coreans…why? because this here is AURMERICA…enough already why we can go back and pick up any A6s,corsiar,phatham, and equip them with high tech gizmos and they will do the job

By: Strider

Strider — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 19:08:20 +0000

Last time I checked we were discussing combat aircraft, not dead generals…
I have a question. Why has the JSF not been fitted with thrust vectoring? we have the technology, and it would immediatly elevate the aircraft’s capabilities beyond all other fighters except the raptor. seems to me that this would make a lot of sense.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:03:35 +0000

Heh,

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:38:48 +0000

Good Evening Folks,
I agree with you “Darth America”, Iran’s air defense is noting that should worry the U.S. military. Russians being the good capitalists that they now are sold identical system to Turkey and Egypt and American Techs have had a good poke around inside them. In addition in the Fall of 07 when Iran was showcasing it’s toy in a war game they turned on their S-300 system. From here on it’s classified but I think you get the idea.
The Russians still have not been able to field the S-400 AD system, a project that was started during the Soviet era.
To SMSgt., as usual you just blowing smoke at me. I also had the pleasure of meeting General La May after he retired from the military and he was running for VP of the United States. I found him to be a serious, well informed and a pleasant person to be around.He was open and frank when questioned and at least when I was around didn’t lose his temper. General La May was an original and in large part created the U.S.A.F.
Often public people create a persona for for the sake of the media and I think this was the case with General Curtis La May. I have no doubts that he firmly believed in nuclear weapons but I also an sure this he was very respectful of them both as weapons and political, and diplomatic tools.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: DarthAmerica

DarthAmerica — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:37:56 +0000

Ok, a few things need to be set straight here…
–Irans air defenses, could not keep out a cesna, never mind a high performance fighter. Look a the terrain.
–Syria, not Iran, boast the most powerful threat IAD. Irans ground based air defences are designed to protect point targets rather than defense in depth. This again has to do with terrain as well as technical limits.
–It is more likely we would use supply trucks rather than F-22’s in Iran. Look at NATOs statements to that effect.
–The F-35, is not “partial stealth”. Why people think that I don’t know but it is not true. F-35 may not be as stealthy as an F-22, but the difference is negligible as far as threats are concerned because F-35 significantly reduce or even eliminate the effectiveness of ground based IADs. Also the F-35 represents a generational leap in terms of stealth technology over the F-22. the same applies to maintenance.
–Russia IS NOT selling Iran it’s most sophisticated SAM. The S300 is dangerous, but not all are created equal. Nor has anything concrete been worked out on an arms deal. Moreover, it would take time to integrate the s300 and make it operational. Notice how we are STILL integrating Super Hornets and Raptors. It’s not just buy and you’re done with the s300.
–no threat air force exist today, nor will one exist capable of over powering the F-22’s and other aircraft we have and will get.
Any questions to these specific responses appreciated.
–DA
–
More later
–DA

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:14:37 +0000

Well, I'll let others with more time on their hands take down the gristle (there ain't no meat)in Byron's post, I'll focus on the gaping philosophical hole in Byron's 'argument'. RE: "produced generations of useless air craft that never saw combat". Ignoring the fact that there has never been a 'generation' of aircraft that have NOT seen combat since WW2 (individual examples in those generations, yes). Such a statement reveals the utterer fails to understand the first and fundamental benefit of a strong American defense is to DETER aggression. It IS unfortunate that mush-minded politicians along with their supporters too often subvert that first mission. By happenstance, I met General LeMay in his later life when we crossed paths at Wilford Hall Medical Center. I guarantee you Skinner, you wouldn't have had the huevos to tell him to his face, even when he was an old man, what you dared to write here. "The only thing harder than getting a new idea into the military mind is getting an old one out". --B.H. Liddell Hart Of course, most of Hart's battles were fought with the Infantry-minded, so he may have been broadbrushing a little there.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:19:54 +0000

For Erich. Iran doesn’t have the F-16. They had the F-14. However, I imagine that they probably don’t have many of them left.
What Iran does have, or at least soon will, is the latest in Russian SAM technology. That’s where you want the F-22. It has the best stealth (the F-35 only has partial stealth) and it can, because of its super cruise capability and higher ceiling, release its payload further out than any other platform.
Iran has probably got the best integrated air defense system in the Middle East, and one of the best in the world.
The other hot spots the US has to consider are China/Taiwan and Korea. If things flared up in either of those locations the USAF would want as many F-22s as they could get.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:29:06 +0000

Steven, you are correct concerning the Navalized ATF, except for the 'marketing' part. There was a Congressional DEMAND that the Navy get on the ATF train. The Navy made a pretty half-assed attempt to comply (read: appease) and ran a NATF office for a while. Here's where the 'marketing' came in. Lockheed made a BIIG deal about how the F-23 would be 'harder' to navalize than the F-22, focusing on the F-23's bigger size as being 'too big' for a carrier -- all prior to source selection. AFTER source selection, Lockheed revealed a Naval F-22 was going to have to get bigger with a bigger wing and control surfaces (see F-35C for the principle in effect). The Naval low speed maneuverability requirement for carrier approaches is a mutha. Future generations may not have so demanding a controllability requirement if they can get the UCAS-D auto approach and land proven out in an operational environment.