Article

2008-07-15 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-07-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Hovered?
I don't think so.

Slow flight, just barely hanging on and thrust vectoring helps. But hovering? You want hovering, call 1-800-Sikorsky.

Posted by USN,Ret. 2008-07-15 01:02|| 2008-07-15 01:02|| Front Page Top

#2 It really looks like it hovers USN,Ret.

where oh where is...

Henry Martin "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA)
Samuel Augustus Nunn, Jr. (D-GA)
Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA)
Russell B. Long (D-LA)
John C. Stennis (D-MS)
Sam Ervin (D-NC)
Stuart Symington (D-MO)

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2008-07-15 01:53|| 2008-07-15 01:53|| Front Page Top

#3 At the ever increasing cost of these things, eventually, we'll be able to afford one. It can be shared on alternating dates between the Air Force and Navy. The Marines can get it on Leap Day every four years.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-07-15 08:53|| 2008-07-15 08:53|| Front Page Top

#4 "Hovered?"

Maybe yes, maybe no....but close enough in operation for government work. I saw an F22 demonstration about a month ago and it was jaw dropping impressive.

I came away with the feeling that maybe, just maybe, we have finally come up with a design that can stay in the same sky with a Zero.

Posted by Kelly 2008-07-15 09:48|| 2008-07-15 09:48|| Front Page Top

#5 How about just stating the incremental cost of each additional aircraft othout tryign to add in development costs?

R&D is already sunk cost. Its paid.

Biggest question is that do we *need* more of these?

I'd say yes - to completely replace the F-15 and F-16. Do we need 189 more? I dont know. Probably less.

And what UAV capabilities are coming on line?

Posted by OldSpook 2008-07-15 10:05|| 2008-07-15 10:05|| Front Page Top

#6 This plane has become some peoples' bete noir. They'd rather see almost anything rather than any more of these...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2008-07-15 10:09|| 2008-07-15 10:09|| Front Page Top

#7 "Hovered? I don't think so."

I've seen one hoover at an air show, not in a horizontal position but a vertical position. It flew straight up then slowed to a stop and hoovered for several seconds then slowly dropped its nose and flew away in level flight.

Posted by Biff Wellington 2008-07-15 11:10|| 2008-07-15 11:10|| Front Page Top

#8 oops, I meant hover not hoover.

Posted by Biff Wellington 2008-07-15 11:13|| 2008-07-15 11:13|| Front Page Top

#9 The USA could do allot worse than support our extremely fine engineers and scientist in the boom and bust aerospace industries.

...but for that to come to pass Congressional Leadership would have to remove their heads from rectal defilade.

Posted by Red Dawg">Red Dawg 2008-07-15 13:12|| 2008-07-15 13:12|| Front Page Top

#10 The F-22 is a great aircraft. It would be nice to have more. For the money though, I'd rather have more C-17's.

Posted by Bin thinking again 2008-07-15 22:17|| 2008-07-15 22:17|| Front Page Top

23:48 ebrown2
23:28 ebrown2
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:27 Deacon Blues
23:25 Red Dawg
23:22 Deacon Blues
23:21 Red Dawg
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:13 Descartes
23:10 Red Dawg
23:09 JosephMendiola
22:42 Butch Grains5850
22:39 Alaska Paul
22:36 Sheba Sheamble5056
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:29 trailing wife
22:25 eltoroverde
22:24 Butch Grains5850
22:19 Frank G
22:17 Bin thinking again
22:17 Butch Grains5850
22:16 Besoeker
22:09 Besoeker
22:03 Besoeker