# The F-22 Raptor has been discontinued



## Runefox (Jul 22, 2009)

The F-22 programme was scrapped altogether yesterday in a vote by US congress to halt production of future F-22's, leaving only the currently-assembled fleet of 187. The programme has been ongoing since the early 80's, and has only recently, after over two decades of massive budget overruns and delays, rolled off the assembly lines, riddled with issues like canopy failures, navigation and total communications failures, software failuers, etc. The F-22 was designed as a total air supremacy fighter, and yet that role no longer exists with the fall of the Soviet Union over a decade ago.

Rightly, many call it a Cold War relic, and consider the current 187 aircraft more than enough to fulfil the role. While the F-22 has yet to see combat, its capabilities in terms of payload come up short when compared to currently-fielded aircraft - Along with its hefty price tag, like the B-2, it's not something that the US can afford to have shot down, and its presence on the battlefield over Iraq and Afghanistan would be more risk than payoff, since unlike the B-2, it needs to be deployed to forward air bases, in range of enemy fire and sabotage.

The next US fighter development is the F-35, which has less capability, but maintains the stealth design, and has several variants including a VTOL Harrier replacement which promises to enjoy a vastly lower investment and maintenance cost along with increased versatility. I'm not really a fan of it, but those benefits are more than enough to have Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and other nations signing on. The F-35 won't be in production until 2014.

Other current-generation aircraft, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon (EU nations), JAS-39 Gripen (Sweden), Dassault Rafale (France), and MiG-29OVT & Su-35 (Russia) offer a much lower price tag, good survivability, good manoeuvrability, and good payload. It's not much wonder why the US is placing its bets on the far less-expensive F-35 Lightning II as the workhorse of its future air force.

This is basically what I've been saying since forever about the F-22. I'm actually really respecting the US congress right now.


----------



## gray_foxor (Jul 22, 2009)

There goes my dream of flying an F-22 Raptor.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jul 22, 2009)

It's not like they can't restart production and order more at a later date.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 22, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> It's not like they can't restart production and order more at a later date.



That's doubtful, considering the utility of the F-22 versus the cost-per-unit, the cost for rigging the factories for the extra runs after production halted, and the fact that the F-35 is just around the corner with a projected 1000-unit purchase for the US alone.

... I mean, they _could_, but there'd need to be some dire need for it.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jul 22, 2009)

Runefox said:


> ... I mean, they _could_, but there'd need to be some dire need for it.


 
Like a rival that actually has capable air resources. Right now the US hasn't demonstrated a signifigant need for new airframes.

In Iraq, since 2003, there have been a grand total of 22 fixed wing aircraft losses and only two have been from enemy fire, two more from friendly fire and the remaining 18 were just operational accidents.

Clearly the United States isn't in need of a next generation fighter as they'd be just as prone to common operational accidents as the old stuff.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 22, 2009)

> Clearly the United States isn't in need of a next generation fighter as they'd be just as prone to common operational accidents as the old stuff.


As they have been, with near-miss catastrophic computer failures including loss of navigation and communications, canopy failures, etc.

It's pretty much true, anyway, and that's why it's for the best to cancel it. The airframes currently in service are indeed more than enough to maintain their original goal - air superiority / air dominance - against virtually every enemy in the foreseeable future. Russia's air force, as the economy continues to recover, is steadily becoming stronger, with Su-35's, MiG-29 OVT's, and the upcoming PAK FA, but the chances of US and Russian forces going head-to-head against each other in combat are very low. The Chinese could be a threat, if not for the fact that the Chinese economy and the US economy are quite tightly tied together, which more or less counts them out.

So... I'm in agreement with the US Congress. And it's not as though the R&D has gone to waste even if they don't resume production at a later date - The F-35 is one example of an aircraft based on the F-22's technology that consequently has a very low price tag for its features (even if it's not very versatile in terms of capacity). Future developments (like the FB-22 concept) could similarly be rapidly built on that same platform with modern equipment - Do remember that the F-22 is over two decades old in spite of its rollout just a few years ago.

With the way the economy is now, cutting the high cost of F-22 production in favour of less expensive developments based on its technology makes perfect sense.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> The F-22 programme was scrapped altogether yesterday in a vote by US congress to halt production of future F-22's, leaving only the currently-assembled fleet of 187. The programme has been ongoing since the early 80's, and has only recently, after over two decades of massive budget overruns and delays, rolled off the assembly lines, riddled with issues like canopy failures, navigation and total communications failures, software failuers, etc. The F-22 was designed as a total air supremacy fighter, and yet that role no longer exists with the fall of the Soviet Union over a decade ago.



Because the F-22 was designed to fight an actual air force... as opposed to US aircraft basically having air superiority in current military theatres simply by getting off the ground (i.e. neither Al-Qaida or the Taleban have an air force of any sort, let alone one that justifies the F-22).

Good to see some sense prevailing that you can't keep funding weapons willy-nilly with the economy going through a bad patch.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 23, 2009)

I can't say I'm surprised.  Though it was an amazing idea, and perhaps the first Jet to surpass the Arrow in all technical fronts, it wasn't really necessary.  The main primes of its design was to maintain air superiority, but it was/is so vastly superior to everything else out there that it was overkill.  

But perhaps the most limiting aspect of the program was the human inside the thing.  It was so fast, so manoeuvrable, that a ton of systems had to be added to basically monitor the vital signs of the pilot, plus to try and keep him conscious and alive.  

Using the F-22 to counter other nation's airforces is the equivilent of using a shotgun blast to kill a fly, so glad the program was cancelled.  Given then US has basically no capital anymore, a shattered economy and 10% of its citizens out of work, I think there are better uses for the money.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 23, 2009)

Su-35 FTW.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Su-35 FTW.



Aye, that's a nice one - and a design mentality that was more along the lines of the F-35, which is to make it advanced yet affordable.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> and perhaps the first Jet to surpass the Arrow in all technical fronts,



Well, maybe the mach 3 (projected) Mrk III CF-105 variant of the Mrk II CF-105.   There is a part of me that wants to believe the CF-105-06 is rotting in a barn in Alberta somewhere; her Iroquois engines the roosting place of hens.   We'll find her one day. 



> Given then US has basically no capital anymore, a shattered economy and 10% of its citizens out of work, I think there are better uses for the money.



I'm torn on this.  The problem is, the US economy is like the monks at the invention of the printing press.  Sure you can subsidize the monks, but what's the long term point?  The US Military/industrial complex drives huge innovation in material science and technology.  Most of to-day's industries are based on technologies that came out of a war-effort or the space program.

I'd rather see billions poured into military R&D than a billion or two poured into the auto and steel sectors.  'Course that must be paying off, GM just launched......a new fragrance.


----------



## Telnac (Jul 23, 2009)

I could see if they cancelled the F-22 before production began & cited the cost overruns, technical delays, et cetera.  But the money's already been spent, folks.  The reason the per unit cost is so high is that theyr\'re not taking advantage of the economy of scale.  If you spend $60 billion on R&D and you buy 10 planes, even if the planes cost you NOTHING to make, the per unit cost is still $6 billion EACH.  If you make 100 of 'em, they cost you $600 million each.

So I think Congress is a bit short-sighted in cancelling the F-22 production run.  If they cancelled it 10 years ago, that would be another story.  But to spend the money to bring it to production then shut it down isn't saving much money at all.

All that said, air superiority machines are a bit outdated.  Unmanned fighters will likely replace then in the next 20 years, at a per unit cost of a tiny fraction of manned aircraft.  Dogfights between fighters simply are so rare that you don't need a maneuverable jet that can take out another at point blank range.  Air to air duels are fought dozens if not hundreds of miles apart from each other now.  Even with the latency inherent in a UAV's reaction time, a UAV fighter could likely match if not outperform a manned fighter in long range combat.  Close combat support aircraft like the A-10, however, is where manned aircraft will likely dominate.

*LOL* Should have read the article first.  I didn't realize they've already built 187 of them.  Yeah, that's enough to meet our needs.  We're not about to tangle with China or Russia, and if we did it'd be with nukes.  Against any smaller nation, 187 F-22s is more than enough to control that nation's skies.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 23, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Well, maybe the mach 3 (projected) Mrk III CF-105 variant of the Mrk II CF-105.   There is a part of me that wants to believe the CF-105-06 is rotting in a barn in Alberta somewhere; her Iroquois engines the roosting place of hens.   We'll find her one day.



Mmm, yeah, that would be so cool.  



Irreverent said:


> I'm torn on this.  The problem is, the US economy is like the monks at the invention of the printing press.  Sure you can subsidize the monks, but what's the long term point?  The US Military/industrial complex drives huge innovation in material science and technology.  Most of to-day's industries are based on technologies that came out of a war-effort or the space program.
> 
> I'd rather see billions poured into military R&D than a billion or two poured into the auto and steel sectors.  'Course that must be paying off, GM just launched......a new fragrance.



Well, therein is the perk of the F-35 program.  It will create 4 times as many jobs as were lost with the cancellation of the F-22 program, plus, being a more realistic and affordable fighter, the F-35 will have a lot more buyers on an international stage.  The 187 F-22s that the US already has are more than enough to assure it air superiority for decades.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 23, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Well, therein is the perk of the F-35 program.  It will create 4 times as many jobs as were lost with the cancellation of the F-22 program, plus, being a more realistic and affordable fighter, the F-35 will have a lot more buyers on an international stage.



Sure the F22 cancellation jobs get absorbed by the F35 program and that's good.  But those are short term manufacturing jobs. 



> The 187 F-22s that the US already has are more than enough to assure it air superiority for decades.



Agreed, but the service life extension program for the F-22 (ie: making it last longer, making it better etc) is where the R&D dollars would have gone.  And the R&D tech spin-offs into the civilian sector (and its impact on jobs) is what I am worried about.  

Imagine the material science that would come from a new Shuttle or mission to Mars program...and the new jobs those industries would spawn.


----------



## WarMocK (Jul 23, 2009)

And nothing of value was lost - except for all the cash the taxpayers had to dump into the safes of some bosses who never ever had to work to earn a living. -.-
I wonder why the Raptor had survived anyway (unlike the Commanche). 1D vector thrust (our Eurofighter already has 2D vector thrusters, and fighters like the Su-28 already had them for decades now), their stealth capabilities still won't really protect them (there are quite a few easy ways to detect a stealth-cloaked fighter), other modern fighters have supercruise as well, and it's price tag makes it pretty useless in a real battle (Russia had to learn something similar the hard way with it's Akula-class submarines xD).


----------



## Rifter (Jul 23, 2009)

These things are incredible when they manage to not go flying apart. A wee bit ahead of their time, sadly.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 23, 2009)

Actually, the Eurofighter Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring; Its incredible manoeuvrability (especially at supersonic speeds) is purely aerodynamic, with the help of special G-suits that allow 9G turns indefinitely.

With regard to the F-35 manufacturing jobs, the United States alone is supposedly ordering 1000 of them, not including the other member nations' orders, which include us Canadians, Australia, the UK (they'll get them first), and others. That, and manufacture of replacement parts and upgrades, should actually keep those jobs rolling for some time - A lot longer than the F-22 would have.



> These things are incredible when they manage to not go flying apart. A wee bit ahead of their time, sadly.


Eh, only in terms of stealth. The supercruise ability has been around since the English Electric Lightning (and the Eurofighter is also capable of this), thrust vectoring has been pioneered and all but mastered by the Russians with recent examples being the Su-37 tech demonstrator and Su-35 production models (along with the MiG-29 OVT and MiG-1.44 tech demonstrator), internal weapons carrying for a fighter was actually an idea that came initially from the scrapped CF-105 (though for differing reasons)... The F-22 did nothing but to amalgamate these features into a single fighter. It's like a board of generals sat around a table and listed off qualities that newer fighters had, and each time they said "WE NEED THAT, DAMN THE COST".

I'd contend that the F-22 wouldn't be able to keep up with newer fighters like the Eurofighter or the Su-35 if it weren't for its stealthy design, which hasn't yet been tested in combat, so nobody really knows how useful that really is. Even if the F-22 is "nearly invisible" on the ground, when it's moving through the air, it still has an IR signature from the aerodynamic forces acting on it (and the exhaust, though this is "hidden" by the tail), and it still has a radar signature as it moves.

Hell, if nothing else, disastrous computer failures would bring it down. After two decades of development, they still haven't managed to make the damned thing not fail.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 23, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I'd rather see billions poured into military R&D [...]



Actually, I'd rather see billions poured into space exploration R&D - same tech and job benefits, but inspirational rather than threatening. The Apollo program et al raised the image of the USA in far more (and better) ways than building yet another super-fighter or aircraft-carrier can do. As it is, the woeful state of the US manned spaceflight program means that American astronauts will be without their own transport to space for at least five years (again!) between the grounding of the Shuttle fleet and the first launch of its replacement - and will have to hire rides with the *Russians* 



Telnac said:


> Against any smaller nation, 187 F-22s is more than enough to control that nation's skies.



Against any smaller nation, 187 *F-15*s would be more than sufficient, let alone F-22s or F-35s...


----------



## Runefox (Jul 23, 2009)

F-35's aren't all they're cracked up to be. Cheap, and versatile, but definitely not as capable as current-generation aircraft. Their main advantage is again stealth, but they lack the other factors that made the F-22 at least somewhat worth building.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 23, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Actually, I'd rather see billions poured into space exploration R&D - same tech and job benefits, but inspirational rather than threatening. The Apollo program et al raised the image of the USA in far more (and better) ways than building yet another super-fighter or aircraft-carrier can do. As it is, the woeful state of the US manned spaceflight program means that American astronauts will be without their own transport to space for at least five years (again!) between the grounding of the Shuttle fleet and the first launch of its replacement - and will have to hire rides with the *Russians*



Yep.  Pretty sad, but that's the problem with administration after administration not giving NASA the budget it needs.  Nixon started the problem when he cancelled the Apollo program and slashed NASA's funding.  Not a single president since has given a proper budget to them, and in 30+ years of being left to rust, NASA has filled up with a lot of excess bulk and bureaucracy.  They desperately need to be reborn.  It's always bothered me that the US is so willing to spend so much on the military (which hasn't been necessary since WWII), and yet so little on Science and Technology used for the good of all mankind.  Could you imagine how far along we'd be if NASA had a 400+ billion a year budget?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> F-35's aren't all they're cracked up to be. Cheap, and versatile, but definitely not as capable as current-generation aircraft. Their main advantage is again stealth, but they lack the other factors that made the F-22 at least somewhat worth building.



Maybe, but given that the current adversaries of the US barely have ANY kind of air force, and the countries with air forces somewhat capable of taking on the US in a fight belong to countries that are FRIENDS and/or ALLIES (a good chunk of whom are already buying other US military aircraft) - what's the point of building an all-conquering weapon system to counter a threat that doesn't exist?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 23, 2009)

Indeed. Right now the only jet I would see a real use for over there is the A-10.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 23, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Indeed. Right now the only jet I would see a real use for over there is the A-10.


That's being scrapped too and being replaced by the F35.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 23, 2009)

Well at least the F-35 is pretty.....


----------



## Runefox (Jul 23, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Well at least the F-35 is pretty.....



Yeah, it could have been the F-32.

SO HAPPY.


----------



## WarMocK (Jul 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Actually, the Eurofighter Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring; Its incredible manoeuvrability (especially at supersonic speeds) is purely aerodynamic, with the help of special G-suits that allow 9G turns indefinitely.


Ok, a slight correction from my side. The next generation that will be deployed 2010 will have it, and the first generation will receive an upgrade. My bad. ^^


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, it could have been the F-32.
> 
> SO HAPPY.



That plane looks like it's retarded; HURR IMMA BURRD


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 23, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Actually, I'd rather see billions poured into space exploration R&D -



Which was covered in post 14.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> The F-22 programme was scrapped altogether yesterday in a vote by US congress to halt production of future F-22's, leaving only the currently-assembled fleet of 187. The programme has been ongoing since the early 80's, and has only recently, after over two decades of massive budget overruns and delays, rolled off the assembly lines, riddled with issues like canopy failures, navigation and total communications failures, software failuers, etc. The F-22 was designed as a total air supremacy fighter, and yet that role no longer exists with the fall of the Soviet Union over a decade ago.
> 
> Rightly, many call it a Cold War relic, and consider the current 187 aircraft more than enough to fulfil the role. While the F-22 has yet to see combat, its capabilities in terms of payload come up short when compared to currently-fielded aircraft - Along with its hefty price tag, like the B-2, it's not something that the US can afford to have shot down, and its presence on the battlefield over Iraq and Afghanistan would be more risk than payoff, since unlike the B-2, it needs to be deployed to forward air bases, in range of enemy fire and sabotage.
> 
> ...



This makes me sad.


----------



## rawrsome wolf (Jul 23, 2009)

awwwww

The F-22 was my boyhood dream, it was the best looking plane i had ever seen.....


Until i saw this one... my what a beauty


----------



## Runefox (Jul 23, 2009)

I dunno, I've got a good deal of respect for the EF2000, JAS-39 Gripen (<3) and Su-35. The F-22's that are already built should be able to hold their own against any threats that might use these aircraft (which would be in limited capacity, since export versions are typically a downgrade from the real thing and numbers would be limited), unless there's some plot to invade China or Russia or the EU in general that I don't know about.

... Is there?



> The F-22 was my boyhood dream, it was the best looking plane i had ever seen.....


Really? Try the YF-23. <3<3 Also, 187 F-22's are already built and in service. (More YF-23)

Oh, and also, let's hope someone makes an X-02 Wyvern someday. <3 So sexy.


----------



## rawrsome wolf (Jul 23, 2009)

I find it funny that the JAS-39 Gripen is made by Saab.

Everyone i know despises Saab's, i love this though <3


----------



## Runefox (Jul 23, 2009)

rawrsome wolf said:


> Everyone i know despises Saab's, i love this though <3



=D They can land and take off on highways and operate out of makeshift forward airbases in the cover of forests. They're designed to operate even if air superiority isn't obtained. They're so awesome. It's such a Swedish, outnumbered-defensive design principle - Not to mention they're fast and manoeuvrable and carry surprising weight.

Also, check out its predecessor: The Saab 35 Draken.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 23, 2009)

Gotta love the SR-71 as well.


----------



## rawrsome wolf (Jul 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> =D They can land and take off on highways and operate out of makeshift forward airbases in the cover of forests. They're designed to operate even if air superiority isn't obtained. They're so awesome. It's such a Swedish, outnumbered-defensive design principle - Not to mention they're fast and manoeuvrable and carry surprising weight.
> 
> Also, check out its predecessor: The Saab 35 Draken.



Its still a saab though, doesnt it break down alot and burst into flames randomly? XD I dont suppose theres a breakdown service for military aircraft.

Im surprised no-one has mentioned the Harrier Jump Jet? I saw one of these close up, and thought they were fantastic


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 23, 2009)

rawrsome wolf said:


> Its still a saab though, doesnt it break down alot and burst into flames randomly? XD I dont suppose theres a breakdown service for military aircraft.


That's not true, Saab is pretty good actually.


> Im surprised no-one has mentioned the Harrier Jump Jet? I saw one of these close up, and thought they were fantastic


Uh, the AV-8B has a lot of flaws and has a very high crash-rate due to it's complex controls and failing. The F35c is suppose to take over and its VTOL is much better.


Shark_the_raptor said:


> Gotta love the SR-71 as well.


Not a fighter or a bomber, it's useless.


----------



## rawrsome wolf (Jul 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That's not true, Saab is pretty good actually.
> 
> Uh, the AV-8B has a lot of flaws and has a very high crash-rate due to it's complex controls and failing. The F35c is suppose to take over and its VTOL is much better.



Dont worry, i was kidding :3

VTOL rules though


----------



## Runefox (Jul 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Not a fighter or a bomber, it's useless.



It IS a reconnaissance aircraft, buuuut...

YF-12.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> It IS a reconnaissance aircraft, buuuut...
> 
> YF-12.





> Missiles: 3Ã— Hughes AIM-47A air-to-air missiles located internally in fuselage bays


Awesome... "popping countermeasures"


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 23, 2009)

rawrsome wolf said:


> Until i saw this one... my what a beauty



Gear down, flaps down, slats out and a 25kt crosswind on short final has just GOT to be a bitch......


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jul 23, 2009)

Pfft, everyone knows that the future of aerospace lies in flying air fortresses.

http://www.acecombat.jp/ace6/estovakia/aigaion01.jpg

http://www.acecombat.jp/ace6/estovakia/kottos.jpg


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 23, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Pfft, everyone knows that the future of aerospace lies in flying air fortresses.
> 
> http://www.acecombat.jp/ace6/estovakia/aigaion01.jpg
> 
> http://www.acecombat.jp/ace6/estovakia/kottos.jpg



It would never stay in the air for several reasons other than in Fantasy. :3


----------



## Thatch (Jul 24, 2009)

Hmmm, does this mean that modern USA finally acknowledged what their WW2 compatriots knew and the nazis suffered from?
Wunderwaffe is not the way in war.



Runefox said:


> Also, check out its predecessor: The Saab 35 Draken.



LOL, the main picture looks like something from a sci-fi film XD


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 24, 2009)

Runefox said:


> It IS a reconnaissance aircraft, buuuut...
> 
> YF-12.



Very interesting read.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 24, 2009)

szopaw said:


> LOL, the main picture looks like something from a sci-fi film XD



You mean like Anakin's Jedi Starfighter?


----------



## rawrsome wolf (Jul 24, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Pfft, everyone knows that the future of aerospace lies in flying air fortresses.
> 
> http://www.acecombat.jp/ace6/estovakia/aigaion01.jpg
> 
> http://www.acecombat.jp/ace6/estovakia/kottos.jpg



that looks awesome. XD


----------



## Thatch (Jul 24, 2009)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> You mean like Anakin's Jedi Starfighter?



Especially this, and and somewhat the Eta-2, but not only. I can't quite place it, but there were some similar ones... But that possibly wasn't a film but a game.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Pfft, everyone knows that the future of aerospace lies in flying air fortresses.
> 
> http://www.acecombat.jp/ace6/estovakia/aigaion01.jpg
> 
> http://www.acecombat.jp/ace6/estovakia/kottos.jpg



<3 Ace Combat.

XB-0 (gunship)

Gleipnir (mobile MRBM launcher with electronic optical camouflage)

UI-4053 Sphryna (silly airship-like aircraft carrier)


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 24, 2009)

I reckon the BAC TSR-2 would have been pretty good if it had ever gone operational. I was lucky to see the last surviving airframe at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford several years ago - nice looking plane with a touch of Gerry Anderson's "Thunderbirds" about it.


----------



## Werevixen (Jul 24, 2009)

An AÃ©rospatiale-BAC Concorde with guns would be my favourite pickin'.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> An AÃ©rospatiale-BAC Concorde with guns would be my favourite pickin'.



Really? The Concorde's more along the lines of a "straight line" aircraft. It'd strike me more as a high-altitude interceptor before a gunfighter.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jul 24, 2009)

The FA22 is somewhat outdated. There really is no more reason to have some one fly a jet fighter. The drones are taking it's place. We also have the laser defense system up and running, thank you Lyndon Larouche. Good luck to anybody who wants to enter our air space.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> The FA22 is somewhat outdated. There really is no more reason to have some one fly a jet fighter. The drones are taking it's place.


Good luck getting a UAV to fight against a jet fighter, provide close air support, and so on. You'd need to create a UAV on the size scale of a modern fighter in order for them to provide that sort of utility, and right now, they just aren't. They've only just recently strapped Hellfires to the Predator and similar UAV's - They aren't that advanced yet.



> We also have the laser defense system up and running, thank you Lyndon Larouche. Good luck to anybody who wants to enter our air space.



Um. Wha? There's really no such thing. SDI (which Larouche was involved with) went nowhere.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 24, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> An AÃ©rospatiale-BAC Concorde with guns would be my favourite pickin'.



As a bomber....maybe.  And only if they amour the fuel tanks.... 

I regret not taking a ride while I had the chance.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jul 24, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Good luck getting a UAV to fight against a jet fighter, provide close air support, and so on. You'd need to create a UAV on the size scale of a modern fighter in order for them to provide that sort of utility, and right now, they just aren't. They've only just recently strapped Hellfires to the Predator and similar UAV's - They aren't that advanced yet.


 
Give about 20 years at most.




> Um. Wha? There's really no such thing. SDI (which Larouche was involved with) went nowhere.


 
The one that helped find Prescott Bush's Nazi connections.

And 30 years later, it works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxZ9IHTH2E

Isreal recently used it to take down rockets. 

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002583.html

We also put them on the front of 747s. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQKuVaV6hwI

It's not 1981 anymore.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Give about 20 years at most.


20 years is not a very long time in terms of technology; Not to mention that they're still planning manned fighters to be built as late as 2014 (F-35), to be fielded well into 2050 (hell, the B-52 is slated to operate until then, a good century after it was first designed). UAV's are currently used as scouts and fire scouts (in fact, one UAV is named such), and should remain so for some time. Remember, just because they have remote controlled vehicles with M249's strapped on doesn't mean there's no longer a need for infantry.



> Isreal recently used it to take down rockets.
> 
> http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002583.html


That project was dropped recently (sometime in around 2006) as being too expensive; The town in Israel they were basing it in made a big fuss about it when it happened. It may have worked, but it's not operational. It may see service next year, depending on project funding. Also, I'd hate to have to be the guy who explains to the guys over in Israel that the sophisticated mirror arrays and lenses got knocked out in a sandstorm and new ones are on order with an ETA of several months from a special manufacturing plant somewhere in the continental USA.

Nor would I want to be the guy who trips over the power cord.



			
				[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser]Wikipedia[/url] said:
			
		

> Even though military experts such as the former head of the Administration for the Development of Weapons and the Technological Industry, Aluf Yitzhak Ben Yisrael, were calling for the implementation of the THEL, the project was discontinued. During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Ben Yisrael, currently the chairman of the Israeli Space Agency, renewed his calls to implement the THEL against high-trajectory fire.


 


> We also put them on the front of 747s.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQKuVaV6hwI


This (YAL-1) actually does work, and might be operational by 2013. However, it's designed to shoot down TBM's (tactical ballistic missiles, like sub-launched varieties) before their re-entry phase (as in, before they lose the rocket booster), at high altitude where atmospheric density is low. Smaller targets, lower targets, and faster targets aren't within its scope - Especially low-altitude targets, where atmospheric density is high, scattering the beam. It could conceivably hit high-altitude bombers, but its tracking system predominantly uses infra-red tracking (tracking the immense heat of a TBM/ICBM rocket booster). Its effective range against a TBM is supposedly 600kM, but its range against an ICBM might be less than 300kM, which is far too short.

In other words, it's not Star Wars yet.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 25, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> As a bomber....maybe.  And only if they amour the fuel tanks....
> I regret not taking a ride while I had the chance.



The story goes that British Airways offered Concorde as a supersonic 'chase target' for NATO fighter interceptors - but the only NATO fighter that could overtake Concorde on a stern chase was the BAC Lightning...

I've had a look around the pre-production Concorde prototype at Duxford, and the impression one gets is the thing is _tiny_ inside - you don't so much board it as put it _on_!


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 25, 2009)

To me the F-22 program is emblematic of the bloat and waste that is built into the US arms industry. I could almost guarantee that the Russians, the British, the Europeans, the Australians, the Chinese, The Indians, the Japanese, or the Canadians all could build something as good for a quarter to a third the cost of the $60 billion development cost of the F-22, if they wanted to. And yes, that involves the setup costs for those who don't normally do that sort of thing. The US arms industry is going to have to get rid of its bloat if it is going to keep on being relied upon by the US military. The financial crisis is, I think, the straw that breaks the camel's back in this regard. Also, the F-22 is so far ahead of everything else out there that it really isn't needed. It's like using a Death Star against a Spitfire. There's just no comparison. It's like the national equivalent of marking scent on a log to establish dominance. It's just a big flying "don't fuck with us" sign. Anyway, if there was another plane that was comparable to it, then the nation involved probably wouldn't be divulging any details until it was flying and being manufactured. Then the US would be screwed for a decade until they can get a newer one out, due to the super-long development timeline. And the tech can just be applied to a newer model. At cheaper cost, since it's already developed. They can always come up with something bette, and due to the financial conditions worldwide, the bloat won't be there, so a new advance model would be much cheaper. Plus, the F-35, while it isn't as robust as the F-22, can kick the ass of anything that flies. There's really nothing better needed.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jul 25, 2009)

Admittidly, without large numbers of F-22's we'll never cope with the impending rise of Starscream.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 25, 2009)

Mayfurr;1096779 you don't so much board it as put it [I said:
			
		

> on[/I]!



Ha.  We used to say the same thing about the Cessna-152 trainer.  Not that it was supersonic mind you....


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2009)

@The Superfoxy Genius: While I agree with you for the most part, I don't agree that the F-22 is superior to everything else around. It might have been a decade ago, when it was first supposed to actually ship, but delays have made it so that competitive aircraft with similar manoeuvrability, speed and superior payload have made it onto the scene, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The F-22 carries its stores internally; As such, it has room for six AIM-120 AMRAAM's and two AIM-9X Sidewinders - Swap 4 AMRAAM's for two laser guided bombs if desired. For anything else, it needs external pylons, something that hasn't been done yet, nor developed yet, and which would reduce its stealthiness (already untested) by a wide margin. In fact, the only thing the F-22 really has going for it is its eponymous stealth capabilities; Since it's been on the drawing board for over two decades, its advanced avionics and computer systems (which are (hilariously or tragically) prone to failure) are no longer unique qualities.

The technology that the F-22 brought to the table was important for the Untied States, but the actual aircraft is a decade too late to be of consequence, or more specifically, worth the cost. However, it _is_ a direct upgrade from the F-15, and its stealth design _could_ tip the tables in its favour; However, silly things like exceeding mach 1, turning on your radar (yes, even the LPI radar - Hence the term "low _probability_ of interception"), and general EMCON/chatter can drastically increase the aircraft's signature on IR or radar respectively. For Cold War-era tech threats that currently exist, the F-22 is more than a match - In fact, current/last generation aircraft are, too, as proven in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. This is why the F-22's production was halted - its mission doesn't exist.


----------



## D Void (Jul 25, 2009)

The F-22 was flawed from the go. 
It was ment to be total air suppremicy when its based on 
besting outdated aircraft. Its slower and less stable than the latest 
russian developments and slower than some of the old airframes.

However, aircraft unless in a large scale war will always come off the 
production lines with out of date tech. The Typhoon fighter in Euro air forces
was first developed in the late sixties. Military tech will only boost in the
case of a war were the country requires it for home defence.


----------



## D Void (Jul 25, 2009)

Runefox said:


> @The Superfoxy Genius: While I agree with you for the most part, I don't agree that the F-22 is superior to everything else around. It might have been a decade ago, when it was first supposed to actually ship, but delays have made it so that competitive aircraft with similar manoeuvrability, speed and superior payload have made it onto the scene, such as the *Eurofighter Typhoon*. The F-22 carries its stores internally; As such, it has room for six AIM-120 AMRAAM's and two AIM-9X Sidewinders - Swap 4 AMRAAM's for two laser guided bombs if desired. For anything else, it needs external pylons, something that hasn't been done yet, nor developed yet, and which would reduce its stealthiness (already untested) by a wide margin. In fact, the only thing the F-22 really has going for it is its eponymous stealth capabilities; Since it's been on the drawing board for over two decades, its advanced avionics and computer systems (which are (hilariously or tragically) prone to failure) are no longer unique qualities.
> 
> The technology that the F-22 brought to the table was important for the Untied States, but the actual aircraft is a decade too late to be of consequence, or more specifically, worth the cost. However, it _is_ a direct upgrade from the F-15, and its stealth design _could_ tip the tables in its favour; However, silly things like exceeding mach 1, turning on your radar (yes, even the LPI radar - Hence the term "low _probability_ of interception"), and general EMCON/chatter can drastically increase the aircraft's signature on IR or radar respectively. For Cold War-era tech threats that currently exist, the F-22 is more than a match - In fact, current/last generation aircraft are, too, as proven in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. This is why the F-22's production was halted - its mission doesn't exist.


 
Common misconseption, it is not a eurofighter typhoon it is just a typhoon. The project to creat it was a eurofighter project same as the 
tornados was and the Tiger hele was eurocopter.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 25, 2009)

Nope, the eurofighter typhoon is correct.


----------



## D Void (Jul 25, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Nope, the eurofighter typhoon is correct.


 
Eurofighter is the project type not the name. 
People refer to it as the eurofighter because of the project.
They did that orriginaly with the Tornados when they first came out.
And now tornados are only referd to as F3 and GR4 depending on the modle.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 25, 2009)

That's still correct, sorry; it's not incorrect to include the full name, it's more incorrect not too.


----------



## D Void (Jul 25, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That's still correct, sorry; it's not incorrect to include the full name, it's more incorrect not too.


 
Yes the eurofighter is the project name, but the fullname varies from country to country, it is the Typhoon ...... followed by role and variant coding. I'll agree that eurofighter is not incorrect but it is not correct eather.


----------



## TIM-ber-wolf (Jul 25, 2009)

That's a pity- the vectored thrust on the F-22 has had me drooling for quite a while, but the VTOL capabilities of the '35 are pretty good, and probably more important in this changing world.

Oh well, at least my local AFB has a few Raptors.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 25, 2009)

TIM-ber-wolf said:


> That's a pity- the vectored thrust on the F-22 has had me drooling for quite a while, but the VTOL capabilities of the '35 are pretty good, and probably more important in this changing world.
> 
> Oh well, at least my local AFB has a few Raptors.



The vector thrusting on the F22 is crap. It barely allows it to cobra, something the non-vector thrust Su27 can easily do. Take a look at the Su35, which does have thrust vectoring, it's the most maneuverable jet right now and it's much larger than the F22.
And only one of three variants of the F35 has VTOL, the C variant which will be produced the least.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2009)

> Common misconseption, it is not a eurofighter typhoon it is just a typhoon.


It's not a misconception - It's official branding (see also: The website). It's like referring to the Tornado as the Panavia Tornado, the Su-35 as the Sukhoi Su-35 (which isn't _really_ called Flanker or Super Flanker), or the F-16 as the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. It really only works when referring to aircraft that don't have a very widely-known numerical designation; Dassault Rafale is another example. Calling it the Eurofighter Typhoon immediately identifies the aircraft as "The Eurofighter" that everyone's been hearing about - Especially when most people refer to its "designation" as EF-2000, which _is_ a misconception/misnomer, but again identifies the aircraft.

For the purposes of discussion, it enhances clarity and brand-awareness.



> That's a pity- the vectored thrust on the F-22 has had me drooling for quite a while, but the VTOL capabilities of the '35 are pretty good, and probably more important in this changing world.


Like Newf said, the Russians have been doing this for a while, and their production Su-35's are using the technology. In the coming years, current and future Typhoons are going to have thrust vectoring installed, as well. In addition, the F-35B (US Marine Corps, Royal Navy) will be the only variant to support VTOL (interestingly and unsurprisingly, Lockheed collaborated with Yakovlev on the development of the F-35's VTOL variant, referencing the design of the Yak-141 "Freestyle" supersonic VTOL fighter (which never entered production due to budget issues). You'll notice that the general tail design (particularly engine/stabilizers/elevators placement) is very similar).

(Interesting notes about the Su-27 series of aircraft is that they're actually nicknamed Zhuravlik in Russia, meaning Baby Crane. The Su-27k is nicknamed Triplan, or Triplane, the Su-33 is known as Korabelka, or Carrier-borne, and the Su-37 technical demonstrator was nicknamed Terminator. The MiG-29 was nicknamed Strizh, or Swift, and also Gorbach, or Hatchback, for the later models, though ground crews and flight crews like to call it by the NATO reporting name Fulcrum.)


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 25, 2009)

The Superfoxy Genius said:


> To me the F-22 program is emblematic of the bloat and waste that is built into the US arms industry. [...] Plus, the F-35, while it isn't as robust as the F-22, can kick the ass of anything that flies. There's really nothing better needed.



Not to mention the OTHER "advantage" of the F-35 as opposed to the F-22 (at least from the manufacturer's perspective)...

... you can flog off (i.e. SELL) the F-35 to other countries (the UK, Australia, etc), whereas the F-22 is *too* advanced for the US to let even trusted _allies_ get their hands on it. Therefore, while the F-35's costs can be spread over sales to the USAF, RAF, Royal Navy, RAAF etc, F-22 sales are limited to only the USAF. I did read that the RAAF was interested in getting a few F-22s, but the US wouldn't let them out of the country. 

Logically enough, the US ain't going to sell its BEST hardware overseas, no matter HOW capitalist the US is


----------



## Azure (Jul 25, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Logically enough, the US ain't going to sell its BEST hardware overseas, no matter HOW capitalist the US is


Duh. Why would you give the best stuff away?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 25, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Duh. Why would you give the best stuff away?



From a military perspective, you wouldn't - the military generally favours making sure no-one else has what you've got.

From a *commercial* perspective, you *would *- companies like to dominate the _entire_ possible market.

So a restricted market for the F-22 leaves the manufacturer at the mercy of their sole possible customer with regards to order cancellation (which has decided they don't want any more of 'em), whereas the manufacturer of the F-35 is in a better position of spreading the risk of order cancellation over multiple customers.


----------



## Azure (Jul 25, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> From a military perspective, you wouldn't - the military generally favours making sure no-one else has what you've got.
> 
> From a *commercial* perspective, you *would *- companies like to dominate the _entire_ possible market.
> 
> So a restricted market for the F-22 leaves the manufacturer at the mercy of their sole possible customer with regards to order cancellation (which has decided they don't want any more of 'em), whereas the manufacturer of the F-35 is in a better position of spreading the risk of order cancellation over multiple customers.


The Airforce is a bunch of pansies anyway, no balls at all.  And since when have we made good decisions?


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 26, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> The Airforce is a bunch of pansies anyway,



Fucking bullshit. While I worry about what they might do under another crazy administration if the right-wingers get back in power, they're toughasses that I wouldn't like to mess with.



AzurePhoenix said:


> And since when have we made good decisions?



*D-Day.*


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 26, 2009)

The Superfoxy Genius said:


> Fucking bullshit. While I worry about what they might do under another crazy administration if the right-wingers get back in power, they're toughasses that I wouldn't like to mess with.


No. They're less tough than any other fighting force, in fact they're less trained in combat all-together and more trained not to pass out while flying.


> *D-Day.*


Definitely no.
You do know D-Day was a two-part mission that had one part failed, and the other was barely a success.


----------



## gray_foxor (Jul 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No. They're less tough than any other fighting force, in fact they're less trained in combat all-together and more trained not to pass out while flying.



You're Canadian. What do you know about the U.S Air Force? I don't know if your talking about your army, but the U.S Air Force has several elite units on par with Delta Force. And about the flying thing: only 4% of the Air Force are pilots. Sorry if I went RAGE mode, but you don't insult the Air Force around me.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 26, 2009)

gray_foxor said:


> You're Canadian. What do you know about the U.S Air Force? I don't know if your talking about your army, but the U.S Air Force has several elite units on par with Delta Force. And about the flying thing: only 4% of the Air Force are pilots. Sorry if I went RAGE mode, but you don't insult the Air Force around me.


Don't care; Air-Force might have some elite units in SOCOM, but other forces are better. They're not super-special, and by just being in the force it doesn't make them non-morons, non-pussies, and strong; sorry.


----------



## gray_foxor (Jul 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Don't care; Air-Force might have some elite units in SOCOM, but other forces are better. They're not super-special, and by just being in the force it doesn't make them non-morons, non-pussies, and strong; sorry.



And the Navy and Coast Guard are any better? I think not. Have you heard of Combat Controllers or Pararescue units? That's not even including the rest of the     AFSOC units.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 26, 2009)

gray_foxor said:


> And the Navy and Coast Guard are any better? I think not. Have you heard of Combat Controllers or Pararescue units? That's not even including the rest of the     AFSOC units.


lol, none of them are good then how about that?


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lol, none of them are good then how about that?



A single US carrier group projects more power than most of Canadian forces combined.  Throw a strategic missile sub into that mix and its even more so.

You don't need to be good, you just need to be "there' with that kind of force projection.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 26, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> A single US carrier group projects more power than most of *anyone's* armed forces combined.



Fixed. 



Irreverent said:


> You don't need to be good, you just need to be "there' with that kind of force projection.



The problem of recent years has been that the biggest tool the US has wanted to use is the "big stick" of military might - and as the old saying goes: *"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."* In other words, "big" force projection has been used in situations where non-military power like diplomacy and negotiation (or even small specialised military forces) would have been more appropriate.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 26, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> A single US carrier group projects more power than most of Canadian forces combined.  Throw a strategic missile sub into that mix and its even more so.



Toss a Typhoon-class sub with a nuclear-tipped Shkval 2 into the mix,and that force projection just went down the tubes. 

I'm not really sure whether or not people realize that units like the 82nd Airborne Division are actually part of the US Army, not the Air Force. The Air Force does have its share of elite units, but its primary role is control over the sky, both militarily and logistically.

That said, people usually call them pussies because they ground when the weather gets too rough, when other units are still fighting. However, I don't think any self-respecting infantryman or marine in the military who's had his ass saved by close air support would say that the Air Force is made up of weenies.



> D-Day.


D-Day was an American idea, if I recall correctly (Eisenhower's, IIRC), and it got the Allied forces into Occupied France a lot quicker than any other effort might have, and at a huge cost in lives. What many people don't realize is that the attack was actually broken into several beaches, of which the United Kingdom actually took the majority (breaking even if we're counting the American effort at Pointe du Hoc.

The general objective on a political basis was to reach Berlin before the Russians did, but it also did wonders for French and Allied morale (well, _after_ they had successfully landed). It was incredibly secretive, and the Germans had very little information to go on as to where, exactly, the invasion would take place - Hence why Utah Beach, for example, was lightly defended (that, and the forces that landed there were swept further away from it than intended by currents and managed to actually flank the positions).


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

Here's a semi-related update: Boeing just a short while ago unveiled a new version of the F-15, the F-15SE "Silent Eagle", with internal carry capacity, radar absorbent materials, and a modified tail and vertical stabilizers to reduce radar return. It also boasts a new electronics suite, and reportedly matches the front-on stealth capability of the F-35 (though its stealth against ground-based radar isn't up to par).


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 30, 2009)

Ew...


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Ew...



 Personally, I'd rather they gave that treatment to the F-15S/MTD / F-15 ACTIVE.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 30, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> A single US carrier group projects more power than most of Canadian forces combined.  Throw a strategic missile sub into that mix and its even more so.
> 
> You don't need to be good, you just need to be "there' with that kind of force projection.



You just about done giving our neighbors a handjob there? I'm fixing to stomp on their nuts but the way you're positioned my foot might instead land in your ass.


----------



## WarMocK (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Here's a semi-related update: Boeing just a short while ago unveiled a new version of the F-15, the F-15SE "Silent Eagle", with internal carry capacity, radar absorbent materials, and a modified tail and vertical stabilizers to reduce radar return. It also boasts a new electronics suite, and reportedly matches the front-on stealth capability of the F-35 (though its stealth against ground-based radar isn't up to par).


LOL, another victim for indirect radar tracking and homing. nice one. 
Seriously: stealth == waste of money today. Serbia killed a Nighthawk in the Balkan war, the B-2 and the F-22 can be tracked with ease as well using a common weather radar. IOW: those who can afford a radar WILL find it, and those who can't usually even don't have an air fleet that poses a thread. 
Throw in the fact that you can turn ECM against the ones using it with successors of the good ol' HARM, and you just want to punch some peoples' noses.


----------



## Irreverent (Jul 30, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> You just about done giving our neighbors a handjob there? I'm fixing to stomp on their nuts but the way you're positioned my foot might instead land in your ass.



The truth hurts, does it?

If it makes you feel any better, I'm ashamed that the Canadian Liberals decimated the worlds 3rd strongest fighting force too.  A navy without battleships, aircraft carriers, missile boats, subs, helicopters.  An Airforce without stealth, bombers, close-air support or air superiority fighters and an aging fleet of Hercules logistics support turbo-props.  Thank gawds we still have the PPCLI and the Vandoos.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 30, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> The truth hurts, does it?
> 
> If it makes you feel any better, I'm ashamed that the Canadian Liberals decimated the worlds 3rd strongest fighting force too.  A navy without battleships, aircraft carriers, missile boats, subs, helicopters.  An Airforce without stealth, bombers, close-air support or air superiority fighters and an aging fleet of Hercules logistics support turbo-props.  Thank gawds we still have the PPCLI and the Vandoos.



I don't even really consider myself Canadian anymore. Quebecois see themselves as a nation in their own right, and they kind've are. On the east coast, we've basically been reduced to both a tourist destination/place to export your call-center jobs to, and a labor pool you can _import_ to your province, like the fucking immigrants. We're not all members of the same nation, we just all pay taxes to the same people.

But _we're_ not the ones who created this sad excuse of a "country".


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 30, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> If it makes you feel any better, I'm ashamed that the Canadian Liberals decimated the worlds 3rd strongest fighting force too.  A navy without battleships, aircraft carriers, missile boats, subs, helicopters.  An Airforce without stealth, bombers, close-air support or air superiority fighters and an aging fleet of Hercules logistics support turbo-props.  Thank gawds we still have the PPCLI and the Vandoos.



At least Canada doesn't have the associated multi-billion dollar cost of *funding *an American-sized military, not to mention that seeing as Canada hasn't launched an attack off its own hook on anyone for at least the last fifty years it's got a significantly _better_ reputation around the world than the USA at the moment. 

Besides, I thought the Canadian navy _did_ have submarines - ex _Oberon_-class diesel-electrics from the Royal Navy?


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 30, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> The truth hurts, does it?
> 
> If it makes you feel any better, I'm ashamed that the Canadian Liberals decimated the worlds 3rd strongest fighting force too. A navy without battleships, aircraft carriers, missile boats, subs, helicopters. An Airforce without stealth, bombers, close-air support or air superiority fighters and an aging fleet of Hercules logistics support turbo-props. Thank gawds we still have the PPCLI and the Vandoos.



It's nice to see another Canadian who believes we should have a strong, full-spectrum military. There are a lot of wishy-washy types that think we should just cancel the military completely because we live in magical happy land and no crazies from the big bad outside world will ever do crazy shit to us. So the main obstacle to a better armed forces is the majority of the population not thinking that we could use a better military. 

I wish we at least had some basic in-house weapons design, ie. tanks, fighters, aircraft carriers, subs, etc. But that capacity takes a while to build up, and the Nutty Deuchebag Party would probably scrap everything in the name of some sort of ill-considered pacifist sentiment if they ever came to power. Mind you, there would also be the elimination of private property, but still... [/rant]


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 30, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> At least Canada doesn't have the associated multi-billion dollar cost of *funding *an American-sized military, not to mention that seeing as Canada hasn't launched an attack off its own hook on anyone for at least the last fifty years it's got a significantly _better_ reputation around the world than the USA at the moment.
> 
> Besides, I thought the Canadian navy _did_ have submarines - ex _Oberon_-class diesel-electrics from the Royal Navy?



We don't need to start neo-colonial wars to artificially prop up our economy. We import human beings and colonize them in our own backyard, away from theirs where they might feel like they have some right to actually fight back.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 30, 2009)

The Superfoxy Genius said:


> It's nice to see another Canadian who believes we should have a strong, full-spectrum military. There are a lot of wishy-washy types that think we should just cancel the military completely because we live in magical happy land and no crazies from the big bad outside world will ever do crazy shit to us. So the main obstacle to a better armed forces is the majority of the population not thinking that we could use a better military.
> 
> I wish we at least had some basic in-house weapons design, ie. tanks, fighters, aircraft carriers, subs, etc.



'Course, are you willing to pony up increased taxes to PAY for such a magical military? And what would you have it DO when there wasn't a war on - I'd imagine your southern neighbour might get a tad twitchy about a full-spectrum carrier battle group flying the Maple Leaf tooling around in their backyard. Especially if you decided to go nuclear.

Hah. You say you've got a "weak" military? Do you have more than four frigate-type ships in your navy? Do you have actual tanks? Do you have combat aircraft? If so, your armed forces are already more capable than the ones here in New Zealand.


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 30, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> I don't even really consider myself Canadian anymore. Quebecois see themselves as a nation in their own right, and they kind've are.



Bullshit. But too much detail to go into.



Wolf-Bone said:


> On the east coast, we've basically been reduced to both a tourist destination/place to export your call-center jobs to, and a labor pool you can _import_ to your province, like the fucking immigrants.



Welcome to the rancid reality of Canadian regionalism. It's a giant fucking cancer we've always had with us. 



Wolf-Bone said:


> *We're not all members of the same nation*, we just all pay taxes to the same people.



Bullshit. But it sure seems that way, and yes, I think that sucks ass. Ditry hairy ass with klingons.



Wolf-Bone said:


> But _we're_ not the ones who created this sad excuse of a "country".



Well, it's not a sad excuse of a country. But I'll settle for the description "Sorry dysfunctional excuse for a country." We are a sincerely fucked up place. Every day the country hasn't destroyed itself due to its internal contradictions is a minor miracle.



Mayfurr said:


> 'Course, are you willing to pony up increased taxes to PAY for such a magical military?



I would, yes. Canada spends less of its GDP on defence than a lot of other countries.



Mayfurr said:


> And what would you have it DO when there wasn't a war on



There's always a war on. And maybe we could do something to help make stability and save lives if we were out there sorting out failed states and shit like that, the kind of stuff no-one wants to deal with.



Mayfurr said:


> I'd imagine your southern neighbour might get a tad twitchy about a full-spectrum carrier battle group flying the Maple Leaf tooling around in their backyard. Especially if you decided to go nuclear.



Why? Would it interfere with any plans it might have? And this may be a little insulting to our American members by using her as a representative, but when you get a comment like this from a famous American political Commentator:

*"Canadians better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."*- Ann Coulter.

You can be damn sure that I want to have a good fucking deterrent for contigencies involving a country harbouring people with that sort of mentality. And if you think I'm painting the country in a bad light, or that I'm being paranoid, then you can go fuck off.  



Mayfurr said:


> Hah. You say you've got a "weak" military? Do you have more than four frigate-type ships in your navy? Do you have actual tanks? Do you have combat aircraft? If so, your armed forces are already more capable than the ones here in New Zealand.



So you're New Zealand. We're not in the middle of the ocean, so our defense requirements might be a little different.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 30, 2009)

I'm not really worried about our military's ability to defend us in the event we're invaded. I'm worried about this already huge _and growing_ underclass taking such an event as an opportunity to take over. Which they would, because they *know* the police, military and government are more afraid of us than we are of them. I've seen evidence of this myself. Who here can say they've had a cop _run away_ from them when they've approached one just to ask a question? *I can*. And knowing that, I'll side with a Somali immigrant-turned guerrilla war-lord over my own kind almost without hesitation, if the need for security and some kind of protection calls for it.

Last but not least, _shut up, *Republican!*_ Regionalism, being the natural outgrowth of tribalism that is is, *is reality*. Our "country" was the result of something that, in nature, is unsustainable; an empire. The provinces are the remnants of that empire, and by playing this charade of unity are trying to remain one. You can not have a unified nation spanning that large a land-mass, especially not when we have increasingly little in common, culturally. *That's reality!*


----------



## Azure (Jul 30, 2009)

Ann Coulter is stupid. I should punch her right in her adams apple.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 30, 2009)

The Superfoxy Genius said:


> There's always a war on.



Courtesy of your heavily-armed southern neighbour in all too many cases (Iraq, Afghanistan...).



The Superfoxy Genius said:


> And maybe we could do something to help make stability and save lives if we were out there sorting out failed states and shit like that, the kind of stuff no-one wants to deal with.



In case you hadn't noticed, Canada is ALREADY doing the stuff you describe WITHOUT the bloated fuck-off military capability of your southern neighbour - and Canadians are doing a damn good job of it too, by all accounts.



The Superfoxy Genius said:


> And this may be a little insulting to our American members by using her as a representative, but when you get a comment like this from a famous American political Commentator:
> 
> *"Canadians better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."*- Ann Coulter.
> 
> You can be damn sure that I want to have a good fucking deterrent for contigencies involving a country harbouring people with that sort of mentality.



<nods> Fair enough. Though in our (New Zealand's) experience, any show of actual independent thinking regarding defence tends to incur the wrath of the Pentagon - the Americans are still in a snit twenty years on for us just requesting they didn't bring their nuclear powered or armed ships into our ports...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 30, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Ann Coulter is stupid. I should punch her right in her adams apple.



Really? I wanna punch out the media/publishers for given her a podium. I wanna punch out whoever's stupid enough to buy her books and not change the channel when she's on TV to give companies who ought to know better an excuse. *I want to punch them out in their shit!*


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 30, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Last but not least, _shut up, *Republican*_



Wow. SOMEONE failed at detecting the joke in my profile info. Supar uber fail. 



Wolf-Bone said:


> Regionalism, being the natural outgrowth of tribalism that is is, *is reality*. Our "country" was the result of something that, in nature, is unsustainable; an empire. The provinces are the remnants of that empire, and by playing this charade of unity are trying to remain one. You can not have a unified nation spanning that large a land-mass, especially not when we have increasingly little in common, culturally. *That's reality!*



Nothing but absurd assertions. And tribalism doesn't mean that we break into smaller and smaller factions, until it's just everyone against everyone else. That's called anarchism. And while large states spanning a wide area containing a lot of regions may only be a few hundred years old in their current form, and may have their own issues with regard to their internal operation, it does not mean that their size or internal diversity means that they are somehow "empires". *THAT'S REALITY! *


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

My internet connection died just as I was submitting my comment, so it got completely nuked. In a nut shell, I touched on the fact that manifest destiny is what Ann Coulter was talking about, and that many Americans particularly during the period after the revolutionary war echoed the idea, with the Fenian raids and the eventual War of 1812.

Newfoundland and Labrador in particular is the butt end of most of the regionalism here in Canada. We joined the latest (save for Nunavut; we joined 1949), we're considered pretty universally to be stupid and uneducated, and perhaps as a result of that, we're considered hard workers who are willing to work for little money. We like to pretend that's a compliment. At one point, our provincial government raised a debate regarding receiving a profit share of our Hibernia oil field, and many mainland news outlets put a very negative spin on it. In spite of the fact that a deal had been reached (with Prime Minister Paul Martin's government), no action had been taken by Stephen Harper's government, and it got to the point where our _provincial government_ refused to fly Canadian flags for some time.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox: Here you are. Never lose your posts again.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> My internet connection died just as I was submitting my comment, so it got completely nuked. In a nut shell, I touched on the fact that manifest destiny is what Ann Coulter was talking about, and that many Americans particularly during the period after the revolutionary war echoed the idea, with the Fenian raids and the eventual War of 1812.



Right. And it didn't work. But hey, since when does an ideology not working get in the way of an ideology existing for its own sake?




			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> Newfoundland and Labrador in particular is the butt end of most of the regionalism here in Canada. We joined the latest (save for Nunavut; we joined 1949), we're considered pretty universally to be stupid and uneducated, and perhaps as a result of that, we're considered hard workers who are willing to work for little money. We like to pretend that's a compliment. At one point, our provincial government raised a debate regarding receiving a profit share of our Hibernia oil field, and many mainland news outlets put a very negative spin on it. In spite of the fact that a deal had been reached (with Prime Minister Paul Martin's government), no action had been taken by Stephen Harper's government, and it got to the point where our _provincial government_ refused to fly Canadian flags for some time.



Dude, I can tell ya right now, anywhere we go west of our own little fringe populations of Maritime Buttfuckistan, as far as they're concerned we may as well all be from "Newfie Scotia". And yeah, they _like us_, but they like us to stay _over there_ and they can play golf on our grass, or if we're gonna go there to work, from their perspective it's great to have immigrants whose skin is the same color and who _sorta_ speak the same language. But that's not seeing you as an equal. Seeing you as an equal is not having a problem with you working somewhere other than the oilsands, or dating their daughter, and when that question is raised, you see a lot of peoples true colors.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Runefox: Here you are. Never lose your posts again.



I don't run Firefox by default; Too slow for general browsing. Chrome launches nearly instantaneously (>1 second) no matter what.  Firefox takes... ~5-7 seconds from a cold start. That would be because I have Firefox loaded down with extensions, however. Which is the whole purpose I'd use Firefox, except they slow Firefox down. Also, Firefox's UI freezes while rendering pages. So... Yeah.


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> My internet connection died just as I was submitting my comment, so it got completely nuked. In a nut shell, I touched on the fact that manifest destiny is what Ann Coulter was talking about, and that many Americans particularly during the period after the revolutionary war echoed the idea, with the Fenian raids and the eventual War of 1812.
> 
> Newfoundland and Labrador in particular is the butt end of most of the regionalism here in Canada. We joined the latest (save for Nunavut; we joined 1949), we're considered pretty universally to be stupid and uneducated, and perhaps as a result of that, we're considered hard workers who are willing to work for little money. We like to pretend that's a compliment. At one point, our provincial government raised a debate regarding receiving a profit share of our Hibernia oil field, and many mainland news outlets put a very negative spin on it. In spite of the fact that a deal had been reached (with Prime Minister Paul Martin's government), no action had been taken by Stephen Harper's government, and it got to the point where our _provincial government_ refused to fly Canadian flags for some time.



I didn't know you were a Newfie, Runefox. You raise some good points. The economic gaps between Newfoundland and the rest of the coutry, as an example of some regions being less integrated than others, is really disgraceful, and as a Patriot, I really wish that those problems could be solved. You are the opposite bookend of the country, but us BC'ers know a thing or two about not being acknowledged by the rest of the country. It's the damn central Canadians being entrenched in the majpr political institutions, and thus the Ontarians and Quebecois who dominate political culture think of the country's interests as simply being what's good for central Canada. Why do you think we don't have a cross-country high-speed rail line? Or even reliable passenger train service? With as strung out a country as we have, we need to compensate with better infrastructure. It's what the country is based on, as Sir John A. MacDonald
knew very well. But no-one wants to bother with making new rail lines or 4-6 laning the trans-Canada highway, because we're all such lazy complacent fucks. 

How about a tunnel or causeway to Newfoundland, Hmm? How about making a high speed train line that goes from Victoria to St. John's? But see, that would require VISION, something which we acutely lack.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

Yeah, I'm a Newfoundlander, born and raised here, currently living in St. John's. There's a lot more patriotism regarding being a Newfoundlander here than there is regarding being a Canadian, and people are taking to flying the pink, white and green "Old Republic" flag instead of the Canadian flag or Newfoundland provincial flag.

But anyway, as Canadians, we're very good at maintaining the status quo, which is why change in any sort of capacity is almost always more of the same. I suppose I realize _why_ central Canada gets most of the attention - That's where most of the voters are, after all. But it doesn't make it any more fair, and quite frankly, there was a lot of talk of separation here during that time of economic debate, with the general consensus being that the Canadian government is, and always has been, crooked in every sense of the word. Doesn't help that around the same time, that big scandal regarding Paul Martin/Jean Chretien's misplacing funds was becoming a big deal. Eventually things got hammered out, but the problem is that we had to scream and shout about it in order for anything to be done - The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as it were.

Hell, our _conservative_ provincial government actually urged voters to vote anything _but_ conservative during the federal elections.


----------

