Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Zamboni vs. the F-22

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
SIG600 said:
Wrong again, F/A-18 A-F. If you're really a team member, you have SIPR access, and can access the info on a Straights of Taiwan situation. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Our CSG, in the joint exercise with the ROKs, is sending a great message to the Norks and ChiComs. We even let the AF get involved and strut their stuff, with 4 F-22s doing a flyover.

That's why the 'going our of business' mandated strategy for the AF is accelerating. They're suffering the lion's share of the DOD budget cuts because they have no way to effectively project power as the US Navy does so well. A CVN doesn’t need no stinkin' basing rights.
 
Last edited:
DaveGriffin said:
That's why the 'going our of business' mandated strategy for the AF is accelerating. They're suffering the lion's share of the DOD budget cuts because they have no way to effectively project power as the US Navy does so well. A CVN doesn’t need no stinkin' basing rights.
Click to expand...
Say what you will, but an 1,100 foot boat is a huge target. I guess the USN is pretty confident that it can knock down any attacking force out of the sky.
 
SIG600 said:
Wrong again, F/A-18 A-F. If you're really a team member, you have SIPR access, and can access the info on a Straights of Taiwan situation. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think that you and that AF dude MAGNUM!! are the same poster. I've never met a Navy F-18 guy who gets all wet in the panties over the AF, its pilots and their airplanes like you.
 
Last edited:
Yes, so what

lowtimedriver said:
Say what you will, but an 1,100 foot boat is a huge target. I guess the USN is pretty confident that it can knock down any attacking force out of the sky.
Click to expand...
An attack on 5500 US citizens, is an attack on the mainland of the US. All the bad guys who can do that, know that.
 
DaveGriffin said:
Sometimes I think that you and that AF dude MAGNUM!! are the same poster. I've never met a Navy F-18 guy who gets all wet in the panties over the AF, its pilots and their airplanes like you.
Click to expand...



Ahh you caught me. You're right again, like always.
 
Last edited:
If the Taliban ever steal a Mig-29, the F-22 might finally get a chance to serve a useful purpose.
 
Last edited:
JungleJett said:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/US-Navy-stunned-Deadly-ne-by-Terrence-Aym-100807-781.html

Hard to fly anything off something sitting on the bottom of the ocean.

Carry on.....

Why do you guys listen to anything that comes of out this guys cock holster?
Click to expand...
This is not a big deal, this capability has eixsted for decades in other forms, US Carriers are large targets that can be disabled. That is not a secret from anyone. But they are also floating islands of US Territory, with 5500 citizens on board, an attack on a US Aircraft Carrier is an attack upon the United States. Until Tallybands have this capability, there is not much to worry about. No one attacks someone who owes thme $100T or whatever the number is we owe China.
 
pilotyip said:
This is not a big deal, this capability has eixsted for decades in other forms, US Carriers are large targets that can be disabled. That is not a secret from anyone. But they are also floating islands of US Territory, with 5500 citizens on board, an attack on a US Aircraft Carrier is an attack upon the United States. Until Tallybands have this capability, there is not much to worry about. No one attacks someone who owes thme $100T or whatever the number is we owe China.
Click to expand...

Your point being...we should not worry about China's capacity to attack our carriers at will with a long range weapon? We should only worry about the Taliban? Maybe we should sell all the guns and equip our soldiers with sticks and rocks.

Ever heard of a little time in history called the Second World War? Got caught with our pants down and got our asses handed too use until we stepped it up.

By the way...all that money we owe China will not keep them from EXPORTING MORE WEAPONS!
 
JungleJett said:
Your point being...we should not worry about China's capacity to attack our carriers at will with a long range weapon? We should only worry about the Taliban? Maybe we should sell all the guns and equip our soldiers with sticks and rocks.

Ever heard of a little time in history called the Second World War? Got caught with our pants down and got our asses handed too use until we stepped it up.

By the way...all that money we owe China will not keep them from EXPORTING MORE WEAPONS!
Click to expand...
My point was the Soviets had the same capability in the 70's and 80's, but because of a known response to an attack upon a carrier it did not happen. Just because the Chinese have the capability does not mean they will use it. As stated above an attack upon an US Aircraft Carrier by China with one of those weapons is an act of total war. The US is well prepared to respond at whatever level necessary to defend its life style, if the leadership elects. My referral to the Tallyband was that they are not a country and it would compound the response to an attack. Then again they do not have the infrastructure or inventory to do more than to be a nuance. The US is in far better shape than the beginning of WWII, when we had the 12th largest Army in the world and 18th largest Air Force made up on mainly obsolete airplanes. But the country mobilized and built places like Willow Run and the rest is history.
 
Then again they do not have the infrastructure or inventory to do more than to be a nuance.
Click to expand...

Ever served where this "nuisance" operates? I am thinking no, otherwise you would not make such a statement.
 
Vietnam count? The Cole attack was a tragic nuisance. Not an attack directed in force by a sovereign state.
 
pilotyip said:
Vietnam count? The Cole attack was a tragic nuisance. Not an attack directed in force by a sovereign state.
Click to expand...

No Vietnam does not count. We are talking about the Taliban and what they are capable of.

The Cole was the beginning of something that ultimately engulfed us in a war in Afghanistan. The bombings of the Embassies and the attacks of 9/11. Were they nuisances as well? Maybe to you..but to those that lost their lives, I am guessing they might think otherwise. The Taliban harbored al-Qaeda and therefore was complicit in the attack.

I could give two ********************s if the people who attack are wearing pajama's, a robe with some sandals or parade regalia, if one American life is lost, that little "nuisance" is worth the effort.

If you want to discount China as a significant threat, feel free...just make sure your bunker is stocked.
 
You don't have to sink a carrier to disable it and remove it from the picture... think about it.

The "cold war" developing between China and the US is probably unlikely to occure purely based on an economic stand point, however you never know what the future holds.
 
McDonalds’s theory of War. No two countries that both have Mc Donald’s will every attack each other, because it is bad for the McDonalds business in both counties. However if one country with a McDonalds starts a war and it gets attacked, the war will not last very long, because it is hard to run a McDonalds without water, electricity, roads, bridges, etc. and it makes people mad. (I.e. Serbia in 1999). Moral of the story - countries with advanced economies capable of supporting a McDonalds franchise will not risk their economy in a war. I read this in one of my professional military journals sometime in the last 10 years, seems to make sense.
 
JungleJett said:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/US-Navy-stunned-Deadly-ne-by-Terrence-Aym-100807-781.html

Hard to fly anything off something sitting on the bottom of the ocean.

Carry on.....

Why do you guys listen to anything that comes of out this guys cock holster?
Click to expand...

So what's your point numbnuts? That the ChiComs can sink one of our CVNs?

No one in the Navy believes a CVN is unsinkable, that's why they work their *sses off to make sure it doesn't happen.

We lost 12 carriers in WW II and the Japanese lost 21.

USS Langley (CV-1) - Sunk February 22, 1942
USS Lexington (CV-2) - Sunk May 8, 1942
USS Yorktown (CV-5) - Sunk June 8, 1942
USS Wasp (CV-7) - Sunk September 15, 1942
USS Hornet (CV-8) - Sunk October 26, 1942
USS Liscomb Bay (CVE-56) - Sunk November 24, 1943
USS Princeton (CVL-23) - Sunk October 23, 1944
USS Block Island (CVE-21) - Sunk May 29, 1944
USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73) - Sunk October 25, 1944
USS St Lo (CVE-63) - Sunk October 25, 1944
USS Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) - Sunk January 4, 1945
USS Bismark Sea (CVE-95) - Sunk February 21, 1945

And we went on to make it the most capable power projection platform ever developed. When we get the E-2D fully deployed it's really going to be something.

If the F-22 had a tailhook, and if AF pilots had the nerve and decent training, it might keep the AF in the game a little longer.

But in another 5-8 years it will be the MC-12 guys running the AF, and they'll be focused on spending the AF budget on airplanes other than the F-22.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top