75 replies to this topic

[Eddy01741]

Razgriz 1, on 14 Oct 2006, 19:00, said:

Eddy01741, on 14 Oct 2006, 19:01, said:

The thing is... the Raptor doesn't have enough missiles to kill 12 MKIs lmao... but then again, Raptor is more of a quality not quantty, while the MKi is the other way around, so it's also better for pilots, as a human life is more important than a plane, or it SHOULD be at least. BTW, the development cost was over 900 mil IIRC, and the raptor does cost 367mil a piece, why do you think Air force only wants like 100-200 of them? Anyways, the F-22 is manuverable, bt not as much as the MKI (think two seater Su-37), and India isn't exactly deficient in their air force. Prices arn't going down either, having engines that put out like 32,000 lb each fitted with thrust vectored nozzles and is capable of supercruise, neither is the raptors frame which is designed for stealthiness. Look, if Airforce already has 50 of them, and prices are still the same, they won't be going down anytime soon. 367 mil is nothing compared to the B-2, the B-2 is like 1 billion per each or so. Bottom line: F-22A can never be considered the best until it kills real enemies, and good enemies, just like why the Mustang is still over the Eagle as the Eagle desn't really go against Indian Su-30mks, just like Iraqi Mig-29s or anything. Mustangs were the best in their time because they went up against worthy opponents, and lots of them, and shot them down.

EDIT: Checking my resources, to develop the raptor, it cost 13.3billion, and the B-2 is 1.3 Billion per piece, not cheap indeed.

13.3 billion to DEVELOP the F-22-that has nothing to do with the per unit cost; if you read one of the articles ( http://www.af.mil/ne...oryID=123022371 ), the per unit cost is much, much lower- though the F-22 is still the most expensive fighter jet ever used. Prices will go down as more aircraft are built and the construction process is streamlined (the B-2 would have been much cheaper if the full production run of 135 aircraft had been made). The AF isn't terribly interested in buying large amounts of them as of now because none of our enemies have aircraft that are significantly better than the F-15/F-16 in any major quantity.

Thats the point, 367mil per jet, 13.3 bil for development.

Seriously, BillyChaka, i think by now you can EXPECT the B-2 to cost over a billion but if you must persist, just google 'Cost of B-2' or something like that.

Edited by Eddy01741, 15 October 2006 - 02:01.

[Amdrial]

Well, my favorite plane is the Spitfire, nice looks and good armament for that time.

[Crazykenny]

Well the greatest plane ever to my opinion is the F-15 eagle.

[DerKrieger]

Eddy01741, on 15 Oct 2006, 01:59, said:

Thats the point, 367mil per jet, 13.3 bil for development.

Seriously, BillyChaka, i think by now you can EXPECT the B-2 to cost over a billion but if you must persist, just google 'Cost of B-2' or something like that.

Did you even read the article that I posted or know how economics works?
From the article:
"One roadblock to more Raptors is the aircraft's high cost. Estimates for the fighter jet range from as little as $132 million to as much as $312 million. So far, the Air Force has invested as much as $28 billion in the Raptor's research, development and testing. That money, referred to as a "sunk cost," is already spent and is separate from money used for future decision-making, including procuring a copy of the jet.

By the time all 183 jets have been purchased, around $28 billion will have been spent on research and development. An additional $34 billion will have been spent on actually procuring the aircraft. That's about $62 billion for the total program cost. Divided out, that's comes to about $338 million per aircraft.

But the reality is, if the Air Force wanted to buy just one more jet, it would cost the taxpayer less than half that amount. The current cost for a single copy of an F-22 stands at about $137 million. And that number has dropped by 23 percent since Lot 3 procurement, General Lewis said.

'The cost of the airplane is going down,' he said. 'And the next 100 aircraft, if I am allowed to buy another 100 aircraft ... the average fly-away cost would be $116 million per airplane.'"
As you buy more of something, the production is streamlined and more efficent, and thus it costs less to produce the object.
BTW, Kacen, what aircraft is that (what is it from, as it appears to be fictional).

Edited by Razgriz 1, 15 October 2006 - 18:29.

[Whitey]

Kacen, that looks fucking sweet! Where'd you find that?

[Wanderer]

my favorite fighter plane (if you can call it that) is the a-10.

[BillyChaka]

Getbackers fan, eh? Anyway, MiG 21 will always be number 1 on my list.

[Flying Tigers]

Wanderer, on 20 Oct 2006, 05:49, said:

my favorite fighter plane (if you can call it that) is the a-10.

The good old Thunderbolt

[General]

Κασεν, on 15 Oct 2006, 02:24, said:

`Nuff said.

Baby of F-22 Raptor and Su - 32

[smooder]

I dont get programmes like that.
As if a Harrier jump jet wouldnt pwn a Mustang.

Haha Pwn

And yes- Spitfire is better thanmustang.
And the Eurofighter Typhoon should hve been there.
Americain Propoganda obviously.

[TehKiller]

BillyChaka, on 19 Oct 2006, 23:09, said:

MiG 21 will always be number 1 on my list.

agreed....if there is a old jetfighter that pwns thats definatly the MiG 32 (Soviets really do know how to make long lasting pwnage stuff)

[DerKrieger]

Here's a good article on top 10 fighter aircraft:
http://www.strategyp...20055151025.asp

[BillyChaka]

I changed my mind. MiG 15.

[Eddy01741]

Ahem coughcough Faggot coughcough... no offense to you, just saying something related to the Mig 15.

[Kris]

Here's a Fact: A Fighter Aircraft is just a piece of machine...if theres no pilot to fly it, the thing is just a piece of crap.

In Short, Pilots pwns every aircraft on earth

[AllStarZ]

What happens if the aircraft were controlled in swarms by AI?

[Eddy01741]

Well to put a point of opposition. Put a fighter ace (like best in the world) in a Mig-15 and put a normal pilot in an F-22A. Guess which would win?

[AllStarZ]

The F-22, mainly because it can be equipped with missiles. There is a point where a soldier's training simply cannot beat pure numbers or superior technology.

[Eddy01741]

AllStarZ, on 6 Nov 2006, 20:15, said:

The F-22, mainly because it can be equipped with missiles. There is a point where a soldier's training simply cannot beat pure numbers or superior technology.

yea, stealth+all kidns of ranged missiles+faster+more manuverable+better aviation suite and many more just pwn a mig-15 'faggot' (i'm serious, thats the american codename, since all fighters have a designation beginning with 'f' so flanker, fulcrum, frogfoot, flogger, fishbed, Foxbat, Foxhound etc.) It's like having 1 abrams against like 100 T-34s, the t-34s couldn't kill the abrams until the Abrams litteraly ran out of ammo.

[AllStarZ]

There is always a certain degree where technology can overpower skill and numbers, where skill can overpower technology and numbers, and where numbers can overpower skill and technology. Its sort of a triangle.

Anyways, as for the MiG-15 analogy, if you were to retrofit the MiGs with heat seekers, a few of them may be able to take down an F-22.

Edited by AllStarZ, 07 November 2006 - 03:56.

[Eddy01741]

yea, it's like saying, well... You can buy a Su-30MKI for 30 mil a piece (a two-seater Su-37 with tiny little diferences) and raptors are going around 300 mil a pop. For all I know, a Raptor can't hold ten missiles, so the raptor can kill like eght of them, maybe less, and then it's dead meat unless it can high tail it outta there before ANY of the missiles from the Su-30MKI locks on, which i highly doubt.

[AllStarZ]

The Raptor pilot is still better trained, and so would be more likely to survive in a dogfight with the Su-30.

[Eddy01741]

You don't know that, and it doesn't really matter in owadays, you can be the best pilot in te world and you probably can't dodge a missile, missiles can take more G's turn harder, and fly faster, you need pure luck and quite a lot of skill to avoid one of those things. And if it's one on one, well... it depends on teh range, in BVR, the F-22 will prob win, in WVR (within visual range) it's gonna prob go to the better dogfighter, naturally the Su-30MKI turns harder and can do fancy manuvers, but th eraptor has the fastest roll rate of any plane ever made, so it's pretty equal. Still, I doubt 10 MKIs vs. one raptor will turn out well for raptor. I mean, there will be more casualties for the MKIs definitely, but chances are the raptor will die unless it can turn it's but around right after launching all it's misiles and get out before ANY of the planes gets a lock on it.

[AllStarZ]

True, but the Raptor is still not in full mass-production, and the electronics are superior aboard a Raptor. Anyways, this whole thread's pointless, because it does not exactly define what is great. One plane could be more versatile (Panavia Tornado), another could be better at turning (A6M Rei-sen).

Edited by AllStarZ, 07 November 2006 - 05:01.

[Eddy01741]

Lol, the zero... Havn't heard that throughout this like whole thread. Anyways, the Raptor won't really ever be in as fast a mass production as most planes as it is stealth and stuff. And MKIs arn't in full production, Russia= too poor to buy them so India bought like fifty of them, of which are still being delivered.