Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
Well let's take a look.
You say that it is laughworthy, and then claim that it is exactly as quoted? "Well off the mark"? Does it have to turn on it's radar to target enemy aircraft or not? Did he claim that it wasn't a superior fighter plane to anything else built? Uh, no? Does that affect the conclusions of the article in the slightest? Also no.
No. The point is that he says that it is allegedly a stealth aircraft, but that that there is no such thing as an aircraft that is completely invisible to radar, as if that were some sort of condemnation of its stealth characteristics. And if its not a superior fighter aircraft to anything we have now than what is the problem? And do some research on AMRAAM and tell me if you think the aircraft has to turn on its radar in combat. I cant really go any further down this particular path.
Quote:
Read again. Your reading comprehension has no basis in reality. He said it can maneuver at altitude, which is useless, because there is no other plane that can. Do you see why?
You're splitting hairs. You still need to be able to maneuver at whatever altitude you can climb to. Its a ridiculous argument which makes no sense to anyone that actually flies tactical aircraft.
Quote:
If you want to actually provide an argument for why a Mach 2 stealth fighter plane that costs a third of a billion dollars a pop, plus god knows how much to equip and maintain, is relavent to fighting sandle wearing beggers with RPGs and IEDs in the narrow streets of third world nations whose GDP is less than the Pentagon's budget, be my guest. Until then, I am unimpressed with your handwaving.
China might be on a lot of people's minds, but that doesn't have anything to do with using F22s to fight 4G battles.
I dont care to since I never made any claim that that the aircraft has relevance to the current war. Thats not what the aircraft is built for. Its built to combat countries that can threaten our air superiority.
Quote:
No coincidentally, the A10 is also much better at actually hitting targets, as was mentioned in the article. That was, in fact, the point. In other words, the third-billion-dollar fighter does not replace the pocket change A10 for these kinds of jobs.
I've seen nothing to back up that claim. About the only thing it can do better is strafe, and have a little more survivability certain surface to air threats.
Quote:
So what? Did you even read the article? This is completely irrelevant to the point. All I see is you agreeing with the article, reinforcing what it says, yet ignoring the point and sneeringly calling it "a joke", "laughworthy", "not based in reality", "you laughed out loud" (I find it interesting when people admit that they laughed out loud at something they failed to comprehend).
Im not sure what your point is anymore. Ive seen nothing that backs up the claims you made in your original post. And saying I dont comprehend something doesnt make it so. The fact that you dont think I comprehend an article about the advantages and disadvantages of a certain aircraft is roughly equivalent to me posting a ludicrous article about physics and then claim you dont comprehend when you rightly ridicule it.
Quote:
By the way, your tone here is exactly why I have no interest in being nice with you.
I'll try not to lose any sleep over that. The fact of the matter is that my "tone" in my response to that article is the same tone you take on a regular basis with many posters on this forum. Sorry the taste of your own medicine is so bitter. And FWIW, my statements in my post were not directed at you in the least. All my scorn was solely intended for the article you posted.
EDIT: BTW, I was able to read Lew Rockwell's site from my military account today.