The U.S. has over 5,000 NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

[USsil80]

the F16 top speed is still top secret

You're using "top secret" like it's something special.

I can't remember what dufus on this forum was convinced that the F/A-22 could do well past Mach 2, but don't be like that guy.

i use it because that is what it is... nothing special.. just fact..

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Those "commercial airlines" weren't exactly common...and their top speed was closer to Mach 2.4 (Talking about the Concorde right?). Plus those were designed specifically to go as fast as possible. They didn't need to pull 7-g banking turns and evade being shot at.


And you f*** copycat snwbrdr...

[rc1honda]

Those "commercial airlines" weren't exactly common...and their top speed was closer to Mach 2.4 (Talking about the Concorde right?). Plus those were designed specifically to go as fast as possible. They didn't need to pull 7-g banking turns and evade being shot at.


And you f*** copycat snwbrdr...

Well I'm obviously not talking about going mach 3 during a dogfight. And yes i was talking about the Concorde. And that was how long ago? 30 years? And the exterior of the F-22 changes to make it more aerodynamic during supercruise.
Just sayin...
Listen I'm not a aviation expert and i don't pretend to be. I know that the most of the high thrust turbofans can well out-speed most airframes. All Im saying is that it's possible or even plausible that there has been a airframe engineered that can hold up to very high top speeds that's it. I mean look at the shuttle. Is it practical in a air dominance fighter? No. But since when is the United States government practical? And that's what i said other thread as well and I agreed with the evidence that was presented to me after doing research. I just don't appreciate being called a "dufus" when there is a clear possibility that such aircraft exist. For Christ sake I'm not talking about flying saucers

[Urabus GodofTraction]

But the term dufus applies to you so perfectly!

You give the gub'ment too much credit. I'm sure there's some pretty wicked stuff flying around these days, but a practical "air dominance" fighter can't say hidden for long. You've got to produce them in good numbers, train a crew, and fly them out of known bases. It took what, only 5 years from entry onto the Force to public acknowledgment of the sub 100-plane F-117 fleet? These days the RQ-170 can't take off from Asscrackistan without somebody snapping some shots. Your plane doesn't exist...yet.

[USsil80]

But the term dufus applies to you so perfectly!

You give the gub'ment too much credit. I'm sure there's some pretty wicked stuff flying around these days, but a practical "air dominance" fighter can't say hidden for long. You've got to produce them in good numbers, train a crew, and fly them out of known bases. It took what, only 5 years from entry onto the Force to public acknowledgment of the sub 100-plane F-117 fleet? These days the RQ-170 can't take off from Asscrackistan without somebody snapping some shots. Your plane doesn't exist...yet.

it is not the "gub'ment" that makes these things.. they just buy them.. lockhead martin, boeing, and such make them...and the whole point of the F22 is to be a fighter/b0mber... it can cruise at speeds that are crazy, and still dog fight, BUT it amazing thing is that it can stay hidden from radar... this fighter can spank anything flying

[Urabus GodofTraction]

it is not the "gub'ment" that makes these things.. they just buy them.. lockhead martin, boeing, and such make them...and the whole point of the F22 is to be a fighter/b0mber... it can cruise at speeds that are crazy, and still dog fight, BUT it amazing thing is that it can stay hidden from radar... this fighter can spank anything flying

I'd really, really learn how to spell Lockheed before blathering on about a military-industrial complex.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Currently... nearly every modern country has technology or techniques that defeat American Stealth Tech. It's not the trump card it used to be.

[USsil80]

Currently... nearly every modern country has technology or techniques that defeat American Stealth Tech. It's not the trump card it used to be.

who?????
that is a bold statement, can you back it up?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Currently... nearly every modern country has technology or techniques that defeat American Stealth Tech. It's not the trump card it used to be.

who?????
that is a bold statement, can you back it up?

Look up the F-117 shootdown in the Kosovo War. The SA-3 is widely proliferated. And based on Cold War era technology.

[USsil80]

who?????
that is a bold statement, can you back it up?

Look up the F-117 shootdown in the Kosovo War. The SA-3 is widely proliferated. And based on Cold War era technology.

really you come back with the F-117.... really.. wow... that plane has been retired for 2 years.. is old... the F-22 is damn near invisible... we dumb the plane done for war games to make it fair..

[USsil80]

ohh and a plane older than dirt the B-52 is going to in use longer than anything... right now it is slated to be used till 2040.. we now how to keep our planes in the air and the enemy in there holes

[Urabus GodofTraction]

really you come back with the F-117.... really.. wow... that plane has been retired for 2 years.. is old... the F-22 is damn near invisible... we dumb the plane done for war games to make it fair..

You're terrifically underinformed. I have taken the liberty of locating a document, that upon a quick review, forms an excellent primer on stealth and it's limitations. http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/artic ... le_021.pdf

It's even got pictures to help you understand.

[USsil80]

do you think that a quick Google search is going to give you the capability of our most advanced war fighting machines?
a enthusiast site??
really?

EDIT
HAHHA that site... you linked... is from a bunch of guys who sim wargames... come on now.. maybe you should put the pants on and realize the internet lies

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Considering charlio comes from a background of Airforce service, and you have trouble stringing sentences together....I'll probably stick with the people in the know this time.
"Stealth" technology does two things...REDUCE (Not eliminate) the heat and radar signatures of aircraft.
Simple technologies such as low-frequency radio waves, binoculars, and cell phones are all that is needed to pinpoint an incoming radar signature, not matter how small.
The Serbians used this to shoot down an F-117 during Kosovo. The F-22 and B-2 only have a slightly smaller radar signature (We're talking a couple centimeters cubed here) They have not been shot down because following that incident the Airforce used a combination of other aircraft and intelligence to avoid those particular radar areas.
Australia and Russia can detect the turbulence of aircraft from great distances. Great britain uses their cell phone towers to detect the small radiation given off by the engines and systems aboard.

Why are we even arguing about this? Go read a little bit and call us back. Until then...DIAF?

[Jesda]

I own three nuclear weapons.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Just imagine how doomed the world would be if every car were powered by nuclear power like we thought they'd be back in the 50s. You piss me off and I might just drive my 208kilowatt Lincoln into your living room and force a reactor meltdown!

[HashiriyaS14]

Well I'm obviously not talking about going mach 3 during a dogfight. And yes i was talking about the Concorde. And that was how long ago? 30 years? And the exterior of the F-22 changes to make it more aerodynamic during supercruise.
Just sayin...
Listen I'm not a aviation expert and i don't pretend to be. I know that the most of the high thrust turbofans can well out-speed most airframes. All Im saying is that it's possible or even plausible that there has been a airframe engineered that can hold up to very high top speeds that's it. I mean look at the shuttle. Is it practical in a air dominance fighter? No. But since when is the United States government practical? And that's what i said other thread as well and I agreed with the evidence that was presented to me after doing research. I just don't appreciate being called a "dufus" when there is a clear possibility that such aircraft exist. For Christ sake I'm not talking about flying saucers

^^
It's not that it's impossible or even farfetched, it's that it just isn't part of the F/A-22 mission. The aircraft doesn't NEED to do Mach 2.5+

Plenty of other interceptors/air superiority fighters have accomplished this. The MIG-25/31 could do 2.8+ (potentially over 3, but with risk to the engines and airframe). The F/A-22 doesn't have variable intake ramps and so would potentially suffer compression stall over Mach 2.0

The MIG-25/31 was capable of outrageous speeds as it was designed to intercept the XB-70 (and potentially SR-71). There aren't any Mach-3 threats out there that the F/A-22 needs to intercept.

Of course, the MIG's didn't have low visibility and couldn't do Herbst turns or any of the other gee-whiz stuff the Raptor can do. Engineering = trade-offs.

[Kouki_Projekt]

hmm... well i hope it doesnt get to the point when we do have to use all 5000

[USsil80]

Considering charlio comes from a background of Airforce service, and you have trouble stringing sentences together....I'll probably stick with the people in the know this time.

well then that make two of us then.. and i didn't know i was writing a paper??
guess the internet is serious business

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Considering charlio comes from a background of Airforce service, and you have trouble stringing sentences together....I'll probably stick with the people in the know this time.

well then that make two of us then.. and i didn't know i was writing a paper??
guess the internet is serious business

On a hunch I suspect I'm more qualified than you on the matters of electronic warfare.

And that article, despite it's source, was an excellent primer in radar function. Pulse durations, PRFs, PRIs, frequencies, etc remain a constant factor in RCS and other radar attributes.

[USsil80]

i guess your an E&E troop then?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

i guess your an E&E troop then?

Combat Systems Officer.

[breadbox]

The power to destroy a planet is insignificant, next to the power of the Force.

[breadbox]

Oh and FEMA has tanks, so watch out.