Can an F-22 land with only one wing?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PXAK6oKiUrA

That being said the F-15 is an old design, no matter what upgrades were done to it.

For example. The control stick in the video (approx 1 minute in) was not available on the generation F-15 that they are talking about. That was a mod made later on.

At some point you are no longer able to retrofit a jet by stuffing more electronics into it.

To give an F-15 the abilities an F-22 has would not be possible.

If the USA wants to keep up with the jets from Russia, Euro fighter, and Saab they needed something better then the F-15.

However the F-15 will still be around till 2025 (I think)

Don’t get me wrong, I love US military might. But it seems to me, we are 5 years into this totally different war than anything in history, yet we are still fighting and spending on the Cold War.

kcluva on April 5, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Don’t forget about China, N.Korea, and Russia. Just because they appear to be our friends now doesn’t mean we should stop guarding our back door.

The lesson of the last century of war is that the military that commands the sky wins a conventional war. You can not win the war on the ground if you give the sky to the enemy. The F-22 guarantees that America can not lose a conventional war. When our enemies know they can’t win, they are deterred from starting a conventional war with us. In this way, the F-22 saves lives and keeps the peace. How much is peace worth to you?

For the lefty lummoxes who don’t see how fighter jets help defend us against our jihadi enemies, let me lay it out for you. If you can’t make conventional war on America with any rational expectation of winning, you must step back and fighter a weakling’s war of terrorism. The occassional bombings of a terror war are a much muted form of violence when compared to the general destruction of a conventional war. Dropping a few buildings with jumbo jets is much less destructive than an artillery barrage. Weapons like the F-22 and the conventional might of the US military forces our enemies into unconventional fights that are basically a battle of flea bites. F-22s and tanks and aircraft carriers prevent the violence from blossoming.

The critics of the US military show their hypocrisy every time they protest it deep within its protection. They never, ever venture out to enemy ground to protest the terrorists and insurgents, who would casually kill them.

Don’t get me wrong, I love US military might. But it seems to me, we are 5 years into this totally different war than anything in history, yet we are still fighting and spending on the Cold War.

“Investing” in our national defense should address all potential threats, both immediate and long-term.

“Superior training and superior weaponry have, when taken together, a geometric effect on overall military strength. Well-trained, well-equipped troops can stand up to many more times their lesser brethren than linear arithmetic would seem to indicate.

Spartan Battle Manual ”

I’ve been waiting for months to use that quote. And it’s true–that’s what the U.S. has done.

On a related note, I agree with Blacklake above. The F-15 and F-16 are basically 30+ year-old designs; even with upgrades t their radar and electronics, how long are we supposed to expect them to remain dominant?

“The ‘High-Low Technology Mix’ works best when we have the ‘high’ and the enemies of freedom have the ‘low.’”
- Secretary of the Navy Lehman, 1981

We’ll never outnumber our enemies; we’ll never “out-muscle” them, either. We have to be better than they are, in terms of technology and training.

Decades ago, when it came time to decide how to structure our military, we chose the “technology path” that would allow a smaller force of volunteer professionals to defeat a numerically larger force of conscripts equipped with less-advanced equipment. This philosophy remains effective only as long as we maintain a definite qualitative edge over our potential foes (like China and to a lesser extent, Russia). Let them catch up technologically, and we’ve got trouble because then they can simply overwhelm us with numbers.

The need for the F-22 isn’t based on perpetuating a “Cold War” procurement program so much as it’s to restore the critical technological edge that the F-15 gave us back in the 1970s, but which has been steadily eroded since then.

Venezuela has already purchased 24 Su-30′s and plans to purchase additional Su-35′s, which are even more sophisticatd than the -30MK’s.

I’ve no doubt that American experience and tactical doctrine would allow our air forces to prevail against even substantially better-equipped, but far less organized, enemies. But when fourth-raters like Venezuela are able to acquire aircraft superior to your own on the world market, it’s not a bad idea to proceed with your own upgrades.

Don’t get me wrong, I love US military might. But it seems to me, we are 5 years into this totally different war than anything in history, yet we are still fighting and spending on the Cold War.

What’s mine say?
Dude!
What’s mine say?
Sweet!

kcluva on April 5, 2007 at 8:46 AM

China.

Every single military action has self-proclaimed experts pointing out how expensive weapon systems are totally irrelevant to the current conflict, the implication being why bother making them at all when we could be giving $500 checks to poor unmarried black women with 15 kids.

In an unrelated story…

Iran is noting an increase in unseasonble clouds… this strange atmospheric phenomenom has clouds crossing the sky at better than the speed of sound…

Sources close to the Ayatollah Cockamamemy has stated “ah, must be a Miracle from Allah…”

Romeo13 on April 4, 2007 at 10:24 PM

See, I think that’s the actual reason Iran released the hostages. They started to see clouds, and hear bangs– Two, not good, combinations for them.

The F-22 stealth jet may be about as useful for fighting insurgents as a snowboard in Baghdad.

It’ll be great for blowin’ up Persian targets though. “The 300… Part deux.” Fewer Western civ warriors, bigger enemy body count, coming to a theater (of war) near you.

And I wouldn’t want to be under that cloud when it “rained”, that’s for sure…

Yeah, this may not be effective in Baghdad, but think of a “quick kill” scenario with Iran, or North Korea…quick in, quick out if you wanna take out a nuclear facility…