Jump to content

JediMaster

MODERATOR
  • Content count

    9,968
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by JediMaster


  1. You're looking at today. That's nice, but it's not the point.

    The F-15 first flew over 35 years ago. We're still building them, brand new, for forces around the world.

    The B-52 first flew in the 50s. It was "replaced" by the B-1, but we still have B-52s on the front line.

    The B-1 first flew in the 70s. It was "replaced" by the B-2, but we still have B-1s on the front line.

     

    What's going to replace the F-22? Not the F-35, wrong design. Usually you stop building one generation when you start designing the next (if you look, F-15C production actually stopped around the time the ATF program started in the late 80s).

    If you think we won't have F-22s still flying in 2050, think again. We may still have Super Hornets then!

    We built hundreds of B-52s in 15 years, of which around 50 are still in service. We're building 187 Raptors...how many will still be in service in 2050?

     

    Don't talk about a hypothetical UCAS which may never come, we're talking about building TODAY what has already been paid for in R&D and literally only costs us parts and labor now vs spending a ton more money for R&D on a new (unpiloted) plane that may be cancelled.

     

    So for all those wondrous numbers about what other countries have TODAY, what will they have in 2040, when all we'll have are 180+ (if we're lucky we've lost less than 7...not) Raptors and a larger number of less stealthy, less capable, less expensive F-35s.

     

     

     

    One last thing that people CONTINUE to ignore. We don't need F-22s just because "they" have J-10s. They could have MiG-21s and 23s only for all it matters. What counts is do they have old SA-6s still, or are they using modern S-300 and S-400 and whatever else SAMs in 2040? Just because our F-15s can beat their whatever-they-are over OUR airspace, what about if we're fighting over THEIRS? Remember the F-22 has officially been given the F-117s mission, so it will be sent in where the F-35s can't even be sent to take out SAMs (because you always will send an F-22 before a B-2).

    We're paying today for our security for decades to come. Don't think it's so easy to restart F-22 production in 20 years when we're going to "need" them, because it won't be and it will be too late then. We paid for F-22 development during the 90s when we had the money to spare. The country is now broke until 2050 pretty much, so we need what we can get.


  2. Well it certainly looks like an Akula, but I wouldn't know a Charlie if it ran me over.

     

    Perhaps Pakistan is unaware that a nuke-powered vessel is not a nuclear armed vessel by definition!


  3. What surprises me is when I was in college, I never saw this sort of extreme leftist/anti soldier sentiment. I went to college right after the 1st Gulf War, and Clinton was elected my 2nd year, but it just wasn't very political then. It's almost like the 60s again now, where every student or recent graduate thinks THEY have the answer to the world's problems.

    I didn't know anyone in my graduating class who thought that about ANY topic!


  4. Sounds like you got the install procedure overly complicated. Delete the game and all those folders first.

    Then just run the installer and let it install to the default location (..prog files\thirdwire\etc...)

    Run the game and set up your things like resolution and sounds and whatever.

    Exit and you'll find an SF2 directory was created for you by the game in your user's profile and THAT'S where the mods will go. The game itself SHOULD be in the program files directory, but all mods go under your profile.


  5. A bigger missile that isn't fired is a bigger waste of fuel/payload. You also can't carry as many. An F-15 can carry 8 AMRAAMs if it wants, but only 4 AIM-7s. No Hornet could carry more than 2 Sparrows IIRC.

    Internal stealthy carriage of a Sparrow could never happen. They could have conceivably replaced the AIM-54 with an uprated Sparrow, but the AMRAAM wasn't just meant to replace the Sparrow but to do more and go where the Sparrow couldn't--like on Harriers.

     

    Also, if bigger weapons are always superior, why do all American jets use 20mm cannon and not 30mm like the Russian jets? The Russians thought 100-150 rounds of 30mm was enough, while US jets always had 500+ rnds of 20mm.


  6. I also think the definition of what terms are unacceptable has been made too broad. "That word has unpleasant connotations." Really? To who, you?

     

    Guess what? You can make any word sound offensive if you say it with enough venom and disdain, doesn't matter if it's been used historically or not.

    Homosexuals chose the term "gay" for themselves because they disliked other terms being used for them. Well, surprise surprise, the haters co-opted the term and now it's become slang for something that's not good!

    Of course, phrases like "gay and lesbian" are silly because lesbians are gay, so that's redundant.

     

    Likewise I think "African American" is a silly name for people whose heritage often goes back centuries in this country while many white people's ancestors may not have come over until the 20th century. So unless you want to call every white person a "European American", it's ridiculous. I also laughed when someone pointed out Charlize Theron, being from South Africa, is a true African-American! Take THAT PC police!

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..