backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 60 comment(s) - last by Xerio.. on Dec 17 at 11:07 AM

Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor  (Source: AirVenture Oshkosh)
The F-22 Raptor is now certified to strike anywhere in the world

News surrounding America's fifth generation fighter programs has come in at a furious pace in the past few weeks. The latest bit of news coming out of the Defense Department should delight many aviation enthusiasts around the world.

The United States Air Force (USAF) officially deemed that the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is suitable for Full Operational Capability (FOC) status. FOC means that the F-22 Raptor’s weapons systems and flight performance fully meet the Air Force's requirement and that the aircraft can be deployed anywhere around the world.

The F-22 Raptor has fully trained pilots and support crew to ensure its successful operations at home or abroad in wartime conditions. The Air Force declined to mention if the F-22 Raptor would be deployed to Iraq (like the high-profile V-22 Osprey) or Afghanistan.

"After years of collaborative effort, a key milestone for the F-22 has been reached," said General John Corley. "The Raptor's success at Langley with the integration of active duty and Guard airmen is the showcase example of ACC's shared vision with Air Force leadership for the Total Force Integration of tomorrow."

"This announcement means the F-22 is ready for world-wide operations, should it be called upon," added Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin's Aeronautics executive vice president and F-22 general manager. "It's a great day for our nation and for the men and women who fly and maintain this incredible aircraft. They deserve the best our country can provide, and the F-22 will stand in the gap providing air dominance and air cover for those who defend us on the ground for the next four decades."

F-22 Raptors are currently deployed at Edwards AFB, Nellis AFB, Tyndall AFB, Langley AFB and Elmendorf AFB. Raptors will also soon find a home at Holloman AFB and Hickman AFB.

The news of the F-22 Raptor's FOC status comes just weeks after the Pentagon reportedly expressed interest in purchasing additional airframes. Concerns over structural fatigue in the 30-year-old F-15 lead to the grounding of the all 442 USAF F-15A, B, C and D air-superiority fighters.

The F-22 Raptor's sister ship, the F-35 Lightning II, recently took to the air again after a seven-month grounding. The F-35 Lightning II uses technology cribbed from the F-22 program and will supplant the F-16 Fighting Falcon, AV8B Harrier, F/A-18 Hornet and A-10 Warthog.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Wait!!!!!
By Comdrpopnfresh on 12/14/2007 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why in the hell are they taking the A-10 out of commission? Can the F-35II take the beating, and have the slow speeds the A-10 presents?




RE: Wait!!!!!
By therealnickdanger on 12/14/2007 1:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly the Lightning can outperform the capabilities of the Hog, otherwise they wouldn't replace it. Who knows? Perhaps the Hog will make a another comeback in Gulf War III.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By MrBungle123 on 12/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Wait!!!!!
By Ringold on 12/14/2007 8:36:26 PM , Rating: 1
He does have a brother, Jeb, but he's not electable. Jeb does, however, have a son; George P. Bush.

Dual American dynasties:

George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Hillary Clinton?
George P. Bush?
Chelsea Clinton?
Barbara or Jenna Bush?

I could be wrong about Jeb, perhaps he is electable, if he ditches his wife.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Lord 666 on 12/15/2007 8:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, Jeb will be quite electable in a few years. Other than the public stigma of being GWB's brother, Jeb is an accomplished politician and sits on many committees including the one that determined that US citizens would not support drastic change unless there was a new Pearl Harbor.

His wife is actually an asset to the growing population of Spanish speaking citizens and undocumented "visitors."

There was talk of making him the commissioner of the NFL, this would be an attempt to mainstream him.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Ringold on 12/15/2007 4:21:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
His wife is actually an asset to the growing population of Spanish speaking citizens and undocumented "visitors."


I like him, I voted for him, could possibly do so again, but don't forget she tried to smuggle some things past customs without paying duties and his daughter Noelle is, or was recently, a prescription drug addict. Not one to take on the campaign trail.

Maybe the wife would be an asset regardless to the hispanic community, it's not like they all even visited customs on their way in to the country, but he'd definitely have human family flaws to bare before the country.

Oh, and that he ignored the will of the people of Florida who voted for a constitutional amendment to limit class sizes didn't set well with me either.

Maybe you're right, though. I guess we can't expect every family to be squeeky clean, Romney style.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Captain Orgazmo on 12/14/2007 2:41:14 PM , Rating: 5
The F-35 is a flying computer with a crapload of delicate moving parts; it will not take well to damage. Which means high speed, high altitude JDAM drops and the like. Which also means when the marine calls in to the pilot to hit the second ridge on the hill to the east or whatever, the pilot will not have a clue what he's talking about. That is why the A-10 was designed exclusively for close air support, with the real battlefield experiences of WWII and Korea in mind, capable of flying low and slow, and surviving battle damage, so the pilot can see things more from the perspective of the guy on the ground (and then hosing the baddies with the most kickass gun ever invented).

I bet the marines are hoping they can get the A-10 scraps-from-the-table like from the air force (just like they get all their kit second-hand from either the army, navy, or air force). Only problem is it isn't really portable and can't be deployed from assault ships, but maybe they can look past that.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 12/14/2007 4:28:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I bet the marines are hoping they can get the A-10 scraps-from-the-table like from the air force (just like they get all their kit second-hand from either the army, navy, or air force).


And we in the IDF get it after the marines are done abusing the gear :)

But in all seriousness, it is very hard to say about the structural integrity of the airframe before it sees combat action.

For example, on 1 May 1983, during an Israeli Air Force training dogfight, an F-15D collided with an A-4 Skyhawk. Unknown to pilot Zivi Nadavi, and his copilot, the right wing of the Eagle was torn off roughly two feet (60 cm) from the fuselage. The pilot managed to regain control of the aircraft and prevented it from stalling, ultimately landing the crippled aircraft successfully. The F-15 was able to stay in the air because of the lift generated by the large horizontal surface area of the fuselage, the large and effective elevators and the surviving wing. Landing at twice the normal speed to maintain the necessary lift, although the tailhook was torn off completely during the landing, Zivi managed to bring his F-15 to a complete stop approximately 20 feet (6 m) from the end of the runway. He was later quoted that "(I) probably would have ejected if I knew what had happened."

The IAF (Israeli Air Force) contacted McDonnell Douglas and asked for information about possibility to land an F-15 with one wing. MD replied that this is aerodynamically impossible, as confirmed by computer simulations... Then they received the photo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc8Lp0ZE
http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html

So it is best to wait and see before passing any judgements.

-------
Chillin


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Captain Orgazmo on 12/14/2007 5:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
I have heard the story before but never saw the pictures... pretty amazing. Similar incident occurred when an F-117 stealth lost its tail structure during flight. In that case however, the pilot didn't know anything at all was wrong because the plane's computer automatically compensated using the main wing control surfaces.

Still though, the F-35 simply isn't designed to fly low and slow and take hits, while the A-10 specifically is.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 12/15/2007 3:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your assesment of the A10 vs. F35.

I have some other thoughts though, maybe they will restart the Army Air Corp again with transfered A10s; though I highly doubt the Air Force would allow such a thing to exist.

Here in Israel for example, a pilot signs on many years of his life (a career choice) to fly the plane. During his training he spends some time with a regular infantry unit on the ground so that he will know what a ground pounder viewpoint and needs for close air support.

As such it is very reassuring to have F-15Is, F-16Is and even helicopters over your head even though they were not designed for CAS.

-------
Chillin


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Brovane on 12/15/2007 12:30:38 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
hich means high speed, high altitude JDAM drops and the like. Which also means when the marine calls in to the pilot to hit the second ridge on the hill to the east or whatever, the pilot will not have a clue what he's talking about.


Actually what the Air Force envisions is that Marine will provide a GPS coordinate for the second ridge and a high flying F-35 our any other aircraft will drop a GPS guided munition that will then hit that second ridge without having to have a pilot fly low and expose a aircraft and air frame to hostile gun fire. That is what the US military envisions the future of warfare by increasing the accuracy of your weapons and your targeting information you can improve stand off distance and minimize risk. Only time will tell if this is a smart strategy.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Captain Orgazmo on 12/15/2007 3:28:19 AM , Rating: 2
Great for taking on insurgencies, but what about a country with the capability of knocking out the GPS satellites (i.e. China, Russia) :P


RE: Wait!!!!!
By demiller9 on 12/15/2007 10:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
China has capability to knock out low earth orbit satellites (500 mi) but GPS orbit at 11000 mi. I don't think they can touch them.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Brovane on 12/15/2007 11:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Great for taking on insurgencies, but what about a country with the capability of knocking out the GPS satellites (i.e. China, Russia) :P


They would have to be able to reach out and destroy multiple GPS satellites orbiting at around 10,000-12,000 miles. China and Russia our any other country for that matter do not have the current capability of reaching out and destroying satellites at this altitude. They could have in the future but they currently do not.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By kring on 12/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Wait!!!!!
By Captain Orgazmo on 12/15/2007 2:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe my point of view comes from military experience! Don't make unfounded assumptions. My country (Canada) is fighting in Afghanistan, and I can tell you, the A-10 is our friend (well, except for the time one of the A-10 pilots mistook our troops for robe wearing terrorists and killed a few). And as far as not knowing 1% about the F-35; well beyond obviously secret specifications like radar cross section, weapon payload configurations, and things like flight envelope (which hasn't even been fully tested yet), the rest is pretty much public knowledge: it has two wings, a pointy end, and jeez, it isn't a flying tank!

My obvious bias comes from experience that the more complicated something is, the less reliable it is, and the more easily damaged it is. Also, and this is an infantryman's perspective, flyboys zipping around at 10,000+ feet and 500+ knots can't possibly relate to the guy on the ground when he's in the middle of an ambush and is calling in air support to save his own ass.

As far as this new age of war, what is new about humping around Afghanistan over hills with heavy packs, and shooting the enemy when you see him? I'm sure against a real, modern, military, the F-35 would shine, but right now, that isn't the case, and it isn't the trend.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By 91TTZ on 12/14/2007 10:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say "Clearly". It's more like a pipe-dream.

Several years ago they were saying the exact same thing about the F-16. They said it could do everything the A-10 can only better.

However, when they looked at the results of missions the F-16 flew, it turned out that it had several fatal flaws as far as that duty goes: It has only one engine so if it gets hit, the aircraft is done. Also the engine is mounted in the center so any missile strike will hit the aircraft in a vital area right below the rudder. It's also too fast and can't loiter in the area as long as the A-10 can.

On the other hand, the A-10 has two engines in pods that are spaced out from the fuselage. If one gets hit, it destroys the pod it's on but the other engine still functions. It has two rudders so if one gets hit, the other still works. It flies slower and has a long loiter time so it can hang in the area and support the troops on the ground.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By CheesePoofs on 12/14/2007 1:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
No, but it's cheaper, and it will simplify maintenance (less types of planes). And in reality, missiles can do most of what the A-10 can do.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Chernobyl68 on 12/14/2007 1:37:25 PM , Rating: 4
not for the same price.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By othercents on 12/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Wait!!!!!
By chrispyski on 12/14/2007 8:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
In all honesty, I would rather have our military spend more money on anti-tank missiles than the DU (Depleted Uranium) rounds the A-10 Avenger cannon spits out.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By VooDooAddict on 12/14/2007 1:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
Most.

The disappearance of the A-10 is sad indeed.

I went to a military high school and was preparing to enter a service academy to reach a dream of supporting that aircraft. Instead I chased after a girl ...

Before breaking into a life story... I'm simply sad to see an impending departure of the A-10


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Locutus465 on 12/14/2007 1:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
It has a vertical take off capability, so it has the slow speeds and hovor capability... It can't take a pounding like the A-10 though, nothing else in the air can. That airplaine is a flying tank, personally I think it's a mistake to get rid of it....

I'm only a novice, and what I say here mainly comes from what I've seen on Discovery programs and in my own research on the subject... From from what I can gather is one reason why they're getting rid of the hog is because the Air Force never liked it to begin with... Lets face it, it's far from a sexy sleek fast strike fighter... It's a slow, ugly little aircraft that only remained in service because it proved it's self time and again in Air to Ground support roles... I think they're hoping that with the stealth abilities of the F-35 they can reasnobly replace the hog and keep survivability up... Of course I think one thing they're not factoring in is the fact that when you get as close to the ground as the hog does, the soldier on the ground holding an assult rifle can become a threat!


RE: Wait!!!!!
By hlper on 12/14/2007 1:53:53 PM , Rating: 1
Do we actually know that the F22 can't take a decent pounding? It does not have enough of a combat record to make that argument convincingly.

Besides a major factor of the A10's durability is because it has multiple redundant systems built in. What sort of redundant systems are built into the F22? I don't think we know enough about this top-secret aircraft to say at this point.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Locutus465 on 12/14/2007 1:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
Multiple redundant system, and armor... These things came back with gigantic portions of the air frame missing. One hell of an air craft... I guess I can't say with 100% certainty that they F-22 doesn't have a similar capability, but my guess is it doesn't (nor do I think the F-35 does which is what I was talking about more).

I just can't see Lockheed throwing in a titanium bath tub around the pilot in an airplane designed to be an air to air fighter. I could be wrong though, like I said I'm no expert by any means.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Manch on 12/14/2007 3:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22 can't take the kind of punishment an A-10 can nor was it designed to. The F-22 is a First Strike/Air Superiority Fighter. That means its primary role is to control the skies above the battlefield and make it safe for our other non-com aircraft to operate.

The A-10 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It will be several years before it's retired. The F-35 will supplant it not replace it.

F-16's replaced F-4s as wild weasels. F-4's were extremely durable aircraft. During Vietnam the Aircraft would land full of holes they would patch it up with whatever they could find(beer cans/oil cans)and send them back up with a fresh pilot(well sometimes).

Durability is not the single determining factor in a planes ability to perform a mission. Increased range of fire speed and maneuverability also play a huge factor.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By 91TTZ on 12/14/2007 10:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It has a vertical take off capability, so it has the slow speeds and hovor capability


That isn't really the same thing though. That just means that with its engine blasting, it can temporarily hover. That doesn't lend itself to efficient slow flight.

The A-10 can loiter in the area for hours, while a Harrier or a F-35 would quickly run out of fuel trying to fly that slow. Once you go under a certain speed, the wing loses efficiency. The A-10 has straight wings optimised for slow flight.


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Anonymous Freak on 12/14/2007 11:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It has a vertical take off capability, so it has the slow speeds and hovor capability...


As someone already said "...vertical take off... and hovor [sic] capability..." does not equate with good slow speed performance.

In addition, only the Marine Corps (and British Navy) model has STOVL. And it is *NOT* "vertical take off", it is "short take off, vertical landing". It does *NOT* have enough thrust to take off fully fueled and weapon loaded. When it has returned from its mission, with less fuel, it can land. (Not to mention that landing doesn't even require "hovering", only very slow vertical descent.)

I think it is sad, as well. My two favorite Air Force aircraft were the SR-71 and the A-10. Polar opposites, yet both good because they were designed for one purpose, and they did their one task extremely well. (My ROTC Colonel was a 'retired' SR-71 pilot, and one of our Captains was an A-10 pilot who must have done something wrong to get ROTC service. :-p )


RE: Wait!!!!!
By TITAN1080 on 12/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wait!!!!!
By Screwballl on 12/14/2007 2:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
nowhere in the story does it say the A-10s are being grounded or overhauled.... it says it will supplant the existing force of other planes...

As I am fairly close to Tyndall, it is very cool see these jets take off and land in the area, and not nearly as noisy as the other fighter jets


RE: Wait!!!!!
By Aikouka on 12/14/2007 2:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
The A-10's systems are still being worked on though:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/AOA10Prime/...


Hey....
By Locutus465 on 12/14/2007 1:49:34 PM , Rating: 3
I've seen transformers, F-22's are totally already in Iraq!!!! Firing "high heat" sabo rounds.... God I cringed every time they starting going on about "high heat sabo rounds"... Apparently Bay knows as much about armorments as he does HDM...




RE: Hey....
By theoflow on 12/14/2007 2:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with a whole bunch of you about the A-10 and I admire that plane. I have no idea why they called it Warthog because it looks ugly, because I think it is one of the best looking war planes ever built.

As for replacing the A-10 with the F-35, I don't mind at all, as long as the Marines or Army get the decommissioned planes and come up with better close air support protocols.

Don't get me started about Transformers, horrible movie with nostalgia mixed in. The first 45 minutes being an air force commercial was mixed though.


RE: Hey....
By FITCamaro on 12/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hey....
By Locutus465 on 12/14/2007 5:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I loved transformers as a whole, I just cringed every time they talked about high heat sabo rounds... A sabo isn't even ordanence in and of it's self... It just allows depleated uranium darts to be fired from tank muzzles... And there's no "high heat" about it, it's pure kinetic energy... Now yes that energy does eventually become high heat, and it does cause steal to melt, but there's nothing about the dart in and of it's self that's hot! Com'on bay, at least watch some history/discovery before filming!!!!

On a side note... Megan fox is hot.


RE: Hey....
By SiliconAddict on 12/15/2007 12:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
You want the anti American BS to stop. There IS a solution.


RE: Hey....
By FITCamaro on 12/16/2007 1:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
Kill people who are anti-American? Like we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.


RE: Hey....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/17/2007 10:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with FITCamaro. The anti-American band wagon seems to be little more than the latest trend to go with. There is no basis to most of it. Sooner or later it will die down. It's just the ultra liberal minority drumming up how wrong it is to do any sort of military operation these days. Russia seems to have the right idea, screw what everyone else says, let's just do it (Referring to Checheyn Rebels). Israel is much the same. I have no problem with the U.S. growing a pair and taking action rather than sitting on their hands. We are a force to be reckoned with, and should be recognized as such. No need to show weakness or give other countries false impressions that they somehow can dictate U.S. Foreign policy (See European Union).


RE: Hey....
By Xerio on 12/17/2007 11:04:24 AM , Rating: 2
The reason we may never "grow a pair" as a country is the sad, anti-American movement of some of our own citizens. Why can't we be proud of our great country without being seen as egotistic bastards? I love this country and the great freedoms we enjoy. It should not matter whether you are a liberal or a conservative, red or blue, or whatever. We need to live up to our great name of The UNITED States of America.


Good news
By Rebel44 on 12/14/2007 1:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
I really like F22 - I hope it would be able to use new lasers instead of machine gun in few years :)

Also with increasing price of F35 Air Force might decide to scrap F35A if favor of building more F22.

I think that USA should develop real replacement for A-10 because F-35 has less firepower and its also less durable.




RE: Good news
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/14/2007 1:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I like the F-22 very much, it's such a sleek aircraft that has badass written all over it.

The F-35 will continue. It's job is to replace the F-16's and F-15E Strike Eagles (Eventually). On the Naval side it will replace the F-18A/B/C Hornets. On the Marines side it will replace the Harrier.

A-10 will live on until at least 2025 if not longer. There is something to be said for having a flying tank with a long loiter time.


RE: Good news
By cyclosarin on 12/14/2007 2:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
Loiter time is a non-issue for support of ground engagements. Current operations employ a KC-135 or KC-10 sitting ontop of the engagement allowing fighters and gunships to yo-yo back and forth between the engagement and the tanker for fuel.

As for the A-10, it won't be fully retired for a while however, it's role has mostly been taken over by F-16s in the AOR anyways.


RE: Good news
By rcc on 12/14/2007 4:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Loiter time is a non-issue for support of ground engagements


When the guy on the ground needs air support, he generally needs it right now. Not in 15 or 20 minutes when the aircraft gets disengaged from the tanker and flys back to the battlefield. Even using relays isn't as efficient as the pilot looses some of his situational awareness as to what is going on in around around the battlefield while he's gone. Ask a ground pounder if he thinks loiter time is a non-issue.


RE: Good news
By cyclosarin on 12/14/2007 7:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
What?

It takes a relatively short time to perform AR and then drop altitude to continue supporting ground operations. Furthermore it's not just one aircraft providing the support, it's multiple aircraft. The aircraft will still have to rearm after they've depleted their ordnance, so they will be replaced by an entirely new pilot regardless. To indicate that you don't think they can spare time to go up one by one to perform AR tells me that you have absolutely no idea how any of this works.

I'm not telling you how it should work. I'm telling you how the Air Force performs operations of this nature. This isn't theory, this is practical application. It is used to sustain air support of ground engagements for over 24 hours straight. Find me an A-10 that can loiter for 24 hours please.

As for SA, everyone participating in that engagement from the CAOC to the AWACS to the tanker to fighters in the air to the alert fighters on the ground all the way down to the TACPs are keenly aware of the whole situation. This isn't WWII.


RE: Good news
By Frallan on 12/17/2007 9:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well as you said its the Air Force way of doing things - the concensus among the ppl on ground seems to be that Air Force support is better then nothing but having a good navy or army flier up there sure as hell beats the crap out of the air force...

Reason beeing same as the IDF guy above stated.

Understanding for Ground troops and a functional doctrine.


RE: Good news
By FITCamaro on 12/14/07, Rating: 0
My God
By pauldovi on 12/14/2007 6:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Is that not the sexiest plane you have ever seen in your life? I couldn't leave the factory where those things are built...

As a young Aerospace Engineer major, I am totally awed that the achievement that is the F-22.




RE: My God
By Ringold on 12/14/2007 9:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
At least the F-22 you know about.

Imagine what small numbers of planes they have that we don't know about! They denied the existance of the F-117 from 83 to 88, I think its a safe assumption they've got toys not made public.


RE: My God
By SiliconAddict on 12/15/2007 12:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yah I can't wait to see those saucers being deployed in Iraq. Operation Dinner Plate is a go.


Good
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/14/2007 1:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to be a good month for U.S. Air Force announcements. Hopefully the Marines will be able to sport similar good news about the Osprey in the near future.




RE: Good
By hlper on 12/14/2007 1:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think the rotating wing has demonstrated that it is just too complicated to be implemented safely enough for the needs of military use. However, I may be wrong, I know that some of the accidents with the Osprey were found to be the result of out-of-spec parts. I am no engineer.


Why bring the F-22 to Iraq?
By MrTeal on 12/14/2007 2:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
The primary mission of the F-22 is air superiority. Insurgents are crafty, but I can't see them MacGyvering some fertilizer, twine and a cell phone into a jet fighter.

The ground support roles that are needed in Iraq could more cheaply be performed by the aircraft already there.




By Captain Orgazmo on 12/14/2007 2:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
How about strapping on a bomb, plywood sheets on their arms (for flapping wings), and then launching from a catapult? It could be perilous (and hilarious at the same time) to any helicopter hovering around.

Seriously though, if you bought a new toy, you'd want to use it too :D


Feels good
By FITCamaro on 12/14/2007 3:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
That I get to help support this bad @$$ plane.




RE: Feels good
By Xerio on 12/17/2007 11:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
Hear hear!


so good, so bad.
By cdrsft on 12/16/2007 12:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
what a beautiful piece of technology and ingenuity. Too bad we're focusing it on designing better killing machines instead of doing something positive.




RE: so good, so bad.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/17/2007 10:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
It is something positive. It's a positive non-lethal way of saying "Mess with us and your not going to live to regret it". Anyone who wants to call us on that, well then it becomes a very lethal and still positive thing.


Sweet Photo!
By goz314 on 12/14/2007 3:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have to admit that the F-22 looks really cool in this photo. I think the vapor trails coming off the leading edges of the wings next to fuselage make it look particularly menacing.




I think...
By Vim on 12/15/2007 4:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think they should remake the A-10, especially if they're thinking about retiring the current warthog.

Imagine a remake of the A-10 with todays technology!




Hickman?
By Gibby82 on 12/17/2007 12:56:37 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure if this was caught or not...but shouldn't that be Hickam AFB?




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki