MKopack

"Ooooo, I said something stupid, and now everybody is picking on me... I'm being opressed, please make it stop." The editor should have left the thread and posted his e-mail address. Thanks, LockheedFix. Mike

That and the fact that small children run away...

Isn't that a little politically incorrect? Mary

2! You make it through a flight like that, and as everyone has said, somebody out there - probably a lot of them - are going to bitch about his patch. YGBSM. Mike

I think someone mentioned the WWI and WWII Q-Ships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship Could probably be done relatively inexpensively and at least initally with good results. Buy an old freighter, mount a couple of concealed, Army surplus, 25mm Bushmasters on the deck, and cruise around and wait. Anybody want to come fishing? Mike

Amazing that when the B-52 first flew our F-86's were fighting over MiG Alley, and that the BUFF's (only slightly more recent models) are flying today with F-22's. B-52's have been flying for 25% of the time that the US has even been an independent country... Mike

That's what we want to hear. Happy Easter Captain Phillips. Overheard on the lifeboat: Pirate 1: "Did you hear something...?" Pirates 2 and 3, followed immediately by #1 as well: Nothing... just silence... Mike

While it's not actually a flying hotel, the real thing was almost as impressive... Mike

Wow, what an amazing idea - how about we float these people a couple of billion in stimulus money? I've flown on several helicopters in the past - none of which were even remotely like a 'cruise through the air'. Day before April 1st, anyone? Mike

After being out of the Air Force for nearly 18 years, I found myself 'reflecting' on this issue just this weekend. Was cleaning out the closet and inside an old box I came upon an original circa-1987 red MacDill AFB, 56th TTW, reflective belt, and an old set of BDU's. (Had to be from MacDill as we didn't wear them at TJ or while in Qatar.) My just turned six-year old son, wearing my BDU shirt, asked what the belt was and I explained it to him. He just looked at me and said "But Daddy, if you're wearing camoflague, why would you wear a belt so everyone could see you?" I was so proud. I don't know if I should just sign him up as the next Chief of Staff, or I should take my disco belt down to the recruiting office and sign back up. I could probably get a good deal going back in, afterall, I already have a belt... Mike

Remembering our Air Force past, one disco belt at a time... Kind of makes you proud, doesn't it? Mike

Was thinking that perhaps stripping down to underwear might be some form of a seabased Naval greeting, but I wouldn't even think of saying that here...

And they're rockin' it with style... It was also great to see the inflight film (which had to be quite a feat in teself, as the cameras of that age were neither small, nor light). It was also interesting to see the kite's "controlability" as the elevator moves and the way they 'porpoise' through the air. The airplane also seems to slideslip through the turns rather than the 'bank and pull' that we're used to - check out the yaw string... (maybe an effect of the wing-warping that the Wright Brothers used, rather than ailerons; or the fact that they're probably only going 40mph and probably on the constant verge of a stall...) Mike

Wow is right - what a great read. I hope you didn't just type that in... Mike

Ahhh, those crazy Chinese... Mike

Almost reminds you of a certain EP-3E, not all that many years ago... Mike

Here is a film clip from the Austrian national archives of the Wright Brothers demonstrating their plane in Italy in 1909. What is even more fantastic is there was an on-board camera on the Wright plane and the last part of this film shows it. It's crystal clear, and apparently the first in flight footage taken - anywhere. Wilbur Wright is at the controls on both of the flights. https://www.europafilmtreasures.eu/PY/322/fiche_technique.htm?ID=322 ://https://www.europafilmtreasures.eu/P...que.htm?ID=322 ://https://www.europafilmtreasures.eu/P...que.htm?ID=322 Talk about a heritage flight... Mike

Well, we will have all of those Predators.... Mike

But wait, there's more - if signing the F-22 petition wasn't enough, here's one to save the E-2D Hawkeye: https://www.northropgrumman.com/protectthehawkeye/ At least this one is actually on a supplier's (Northrup Grumman) website. Mike

Several years ago there was a similiar 'campaign' based around the Canadian Snowbirds Demo team - 'Newjetsforsnowbirds.com' that was found to be paid for by BAe - the expected supplier of the potential 'new jets'. I signed the Raptor petition and received a message back from the website that really led me to believe that LM is behind the site (which I'm sure we all expected). It described new F-22's as a grand jobs program for America. While personally I do believe that there's a need for further Raptor, I believe that the need is based on capability, not just in pumping $$'s into the contractor which would undoubtably save jobs, but would do more for LM's bottom line. Mike

"Do you have anything to declare?" Sorry, had to do it. How things have changed... I spent seven months in Doha in 90-91 and some of the guys wanted to get their passports stamped - we took a taxi over to the airport where they couldn't even find the 'stamp'. Had to go down to the Qatari Customs Ministry office in town where someone had one in a desk. Not only that, but the local government at the time not only said that alcohol would be fine on base, but apparently offered to provide it (which was turned down by our command...) Mike

You're right, there will be a time in the future when "the competition" will catch up to the F-35 and F-22, just as they did to the SPAD, the P-51, the F-86, the F-4 and the F-15 and 16 and an 'acceptable losses' argument will come up. In my view, as long as we're strapping our young men and women into aircraft and sending them into combat, we need to keep that number as close to zero as we possibly can. Can UCAV's help in doing that? Should we keep working that direction? Of course, but a 'disposable' Predator or Reaper won't cut it in a high intensity conflict against an enemy with an air defense system. How long will it be before a UCAV increases in complexity (and cost) until it becomes an unmanned F-22 or F-35 (which we could probably do today) and the cost is basically what we have now - minus the pilot. Look at some of the unmanned systems in development today. Capability = cost, unfortunately, and with capability, you lose your disposability. It doesn't matter whether dominance is acquired through manned or unmanned systems, or flocks of ninja birds trained to fly down enemy intakes, dominance means when the guy on the ground looks up, the aircraft overhead is one of his. Mike

And applying the same percentages to the currently planned 183 buy, leaves roughly 115 combat-coded F-22's available to cover any contingency that may arise. About 4 1/2 squadrons to cover the world, not enough in my book, but hey, I'm just an ex-maintainer... To put the F-22's value another way, my squadron was tasked to strike targets in Baghdad on 19 Jan 1991 as part of Package Q, the largest strike package flown during the Gulf War, made up of 72 F-16's, F-15's flying MiGCAP, F-4G's as Weasels / SEAD, EF-111's in their EW role, E-3's watching and directing everything as it unfolded, and a fleet of tankers to keep everyone flying. Two of my friends were blown out of the sky that day - and fortunate to spend the next six weeks being tortured as POW's. Had F-22's been available that day, six to eight aircraft would have completed the mission with a couple of tankers to them top off, and the Iraqis wouldn't have known anyone was there until the weapons were on the ground, and the attackers were out of harms way. I'll bet Tico and Cujo would like the math on the F-22 side in that one. Mike Kopack

R&D is great, and of course we need to keep pushing the technological boundries (as our potential foes are as well) but R&D isn't a usable weapons system when we need it - as ClearedHot mentioned Pearl Harbors have a tendancy of happening - and we don't need to be caught again with a fleet of obsolete P-35's and P-40's. The YF-22 was great R&D, it brought fighter technology almost to what we thought was, at the time, a 'fictional' level, but it required the actual production to become an actual operational weapons system. The YF-22 was selected over the YF-23 during the spring of 1991, it became operational, what, two years ago? Where would we be today if we'd 'held' it at an R&D level? Raptors are expensive today, buying them at the leisurely pace that we are, imagine what they'd be if we had to have them overnight, based upon an imminent threat? (Even if an 'emergency' production arte were possible - we're not talking riviting together Spitfires during the Battle of Britain...) Mike

Current day, I'm pretty confident that the aircraft we have will do quite well, but we need to keep planning for 10, 15 and 20 years from now, in a day when the Eagles, Vipers and Warthogs - and even our Predators and Reapers may not be sufficient. The current plan is to replace a large number of legacy fighters with UAV's (look at the ANG today), which work well over Iraq, but would not over Russia, China, etc... ARe we currently building building for what five years from now will be thought of as the 'last' war, rather than the 'next'? People ask if we can afford to build more Raptors, and it's a valid question. It is an aircraft designed and built for the Cold War - but just yesterday Russia announced that their 5th generation fighter would make a first flight in 2009, and China with their new (Walmart, etc.) wealth may be an ever larger technological threat. Can we afford NOT to build more F-22 when each fraction of dominance that we lose, will translate directly to higher loss rates in aircraft, and service people in a future conflict. The difference between using F-22's and legacy fighters (F-15, F-16) as air superiority aircraft in a future conflict could come down to when one of our Grunts on the ground calls for CAS whether the next aircraft he sees is an allied A-10, or an enemy Su-25 - something our guys on the ground haven't had to consider in more than a generation. It could be that simple. Mike Kopack