14
   

Obama's State of the Union

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 11:59 am
@aspvenom,
aspvenom wrote:
F-35 vs F22, F-35 is going down. F-22 is specifically made of aerial dominance while F-35 is for air to land assaults. F-35 is only the second best, with respect to aerial warfare.


It's a little more complicated than that. The F-35 has the ability to get a radar lock in any direction and fire a missile without having any need to maneuver to point at the enemy. As good as the F-22 is, it still has to maneuver to point at an enemy before it can fire.



aspvenom wrote:
This is one major reason that F-22 was not for sale to any of the allies of America.


Only the liberals objected to the idea of our friends having top-rate weapons.



aspvenom wrote:
I don't see this discontinuation of F-22 as a "revolutionary step forward that will make previous fighter designs obsolete."


It depends on how the ability to fire an air-to-air missile in any direction pans out.



aspvenom wrote:
They could have just be truthful for once and stated that F-22's are too expensive for a threat that's not there at the moment.


That is not the reason the liberals oppose the program.

They oppose the program because they want the bad guys to slaughter our soldiers and then conquer us.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:00 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
High taxes to pay for a military powerful enough to oppress us is freedom.


What the military does is defend us from oppression.

What the liberals want to do is eliminate that defense, so the bad guys can come and oppress us.



DrewDad wrote:
Preventing people from being bankrupted by medical costs is oppression.

Making sure that pregnant women are denied abortions is caring.

Caring for starving kids is hate.

Xenophobia is justified.

Science is a religion.

Gotcha.


None of that seems to have anything to do with the liberals' desire to have our soldiers killed and have our allies conquered.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:00 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

They oppose the program because they want the bad guys to slaughter our soldiers and then conquer us.


You're a ******* nutjob.

Cycloptichorn
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
China has no ability to 'conquer' the rest of the world.


Their power is growing, and it will continue to grow as they conquer more and more.

At the moment, they are going to try to conquer our close allies Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.

If we do not defeat that attempt, they will look for someplace else to conquer after they consolidate their hold over those nations.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of the logistics involved in not only mounting an assualt, but in taking and holding land. They simply don't have the military forces necessary to do so. They couldn't even hold all of Asia, let alone any other continent.


At the moment, they are going to focus on our close allies Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.

Other countries will come later, if they are allowed to conquer these first countries.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
oralloy wrote:
China will start by conquering our close allies Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.


You are a moron if you think this has any chance of coming true. It simply doesn't.


It would have a very high chance of coming true if the liberals were allowed to disarm the US and our allies.

Of course, since the liberals will not be allowed to do this, we will be able to fend off China when they move on our allies.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
Why am I even wasting my time responding to your fever dreams of repelling a Red Dawn-style invasion?

Cycloptichorn


Because you aren't responding to any such thing. In the near term, the Chinese menace is only a threat to our close allies Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
oralloy wrote:
They oppose the program because they want the bad guys to slaughter our soldiers and then conquer us.


You're a ******* nutjob.

Cycloptichorn


I'm not the one trying to get our soldiers killed and get our allies conquered.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  5  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:04 pm
@oralloy,
what about Canada?

that threat is closer to home, eh?
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:07 pm
@Rockhead,
Yup. Buncha socialists. And the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers' Party. So Canadians are a buncha Nazis.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:09 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
what about Canada?

that threat is closer to home, eh?


Canada is not a threat. They are an ally who we would help to defend if they were attacked.
0 Replies
 
aspvenom
 
  4  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:10 pm
@oralloy,
Overall F-22 is a better craft.
observability is superior on the F-22
F-22 has vectoring engines which means F-35 is french toast in a dog fight.
With the weapon and missile advancements on the F-35, maneuverability is nearly obsolete.
F22 has a 144 to 0 kill ratio in tests, and can clean clock 6 planes before they even know it's there. I haven't seen any statistics on the f35 yet but it would be great to have some statistics for it to compare. The f22 also has the designation of "Air Superiority Fighter", whereas the f35 is a "Fighter-Bomber/Close air support /Attack Aircraft".

And regarding the matter of "our friends" having top rate weapons, what happens when they aren't our friends anymore? Aren't we suppose to be one step ahead of them in case of a betrayal?

You should stop meddling in illogical fantasies where it's us vs them.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:10 pm
@DrewDad,
and who knows what they might be doing in their half of our lakes...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:23 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
What the military does is defend us from oppression.


that wouldn't be such a bad idea - if the U.S. would just stick to defence of America and didn't get mucked up in other countries' business

U.S. military costs would go down significantly if the military would stay home and defend.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:09 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

what about Canada?

that threat is closer to home, eh?


According to the closest threat to our home, Obama, Canada is overseas.

Linamar Corp. is a Canadian company in Ashville, NC that Obama
touted as an example of America attracting jobs from overseas.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:11 pm
@aspvenom,
aspvenom wrote:



You should stop meddling in illogical fantasies where it's us vs them.


You want the US to stop participating in war games?
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:11 pm
@H2O MAN,
sorry, it's much too early in my day for water weenie-isms...
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:54 pm
@Rockhead,
I see that it's not too ******* early for dickhead-isms
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 03:55 pm
@ehBeth,
Amen sister. best post so far. Now if you can convince the stupid politicians in Washington dc.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 05:54 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
U.S. military costs would go down significantly if the military would stay home and defend.

you seem to fundamentally fail to understand why all of that money is spent.............we provide the vast majority of the security required so that the global capitalists can operate. is Canada ready to kick in another $50 billion US a year to carry your share of the load so that we dont have to??
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 06:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, What makes you believe the US has the responsibility to spend more than seven times all the other countries spend on defense, while we underfund our schools, infrastructure, and our citizens must sacrifice a larger tax burden?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 09:27 pm
@aspvenom,
aspvenom wrote:
observability is superior on the F-22


The F-35 has little cameras all over the plane that feed into the central computer, which then projects an image of the outside world to the pilot's helmet depending on which direction he (or she) is looking.

From the perspective of the pilot's eyes, it will appear that the pilot is just flying through the air in a chair, without any plane at all.



aspvenom wrote:
F-22 has vectoring engines which means F-35 is french toast in a dog fight.
With the weapon and missile advancements on the F-35, maneuverability is nearly obsolete.


If the F-35 succeeds in making maneuverability obsolete, then no amount of thrust vectoring will do the F-22 any good.



aspvenom wrote:
F22 has a 144 to 0 kill ratio in tests, and can clean clock 6 planes before they even know it's there. I haven't seen any statistics on the f35 yet but it would be great to have some statistics for it to compare.


Yes. The hopes that the F-35 will turn out "as good as planned for" are a bit of a gamble.

We should retain the capability of making more F-22s just in case the F-35 turns out to be a dud.



aspvenom wrote:
And regarding the matter of "our friends" having top rate weapons, what happens when they aren't our friends anymore? Aren't we suppose to be one step ahead of them in case of a betrayal?


It is unlikely in the extreme that our closest allies will become our enemies within the lifetime of these fighters.

And having strong friends and allies makes us stronger as well.



aspvenom wrote:
You should stop meddling in illogical fantasies where it's us vs them.


That China poses an imminent grave threat to a number of our close allies is not a fantasy, and certainly not an illogical one.

If we want to avoid a war, then we must be strong enough to fight that war. Otherwise the war will come to us whether we like it or not.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 09:28 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
oralloy wrote:
What the military does is defend us from oppression.


that wouldn't be such a bad idea - if the U.S. would just stick to defence of America and didn't get mucked up in other countries' business


We mess with those other countries because they are a threat to either us or our allies.



ehBeth wrote:
U.S. military costs would go down significantly if the military would stay home and defend.


We don't want military costs to go down significantly. We want to continue defending our friends and allies.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2019 at 03:19:40