If you talk to your Marine OCS recruiter, they will allow you to take exams before signing any papers to join OCS. If selected, you will be garunteed a seat at flight school. They fly F18’s and a variety of nift attack aircraft and the jets launch off of the carriers as well. If you want to fly, I suggest that route as they’re the only branch that will garuntee you a seat in flight school before signing up if you qualify.
Thanks for the info, it is just for curiosity, I don’t think I’ll be flying stealth fighters anytime soon. Although on a similar topic, anyone know why they’re buying more F-35s? The F-22 is supposed to be a much superior plane to the F-35, which people are saying is overrated and overpriced (underpowered, not stealthy enough - although I suppose your bro would know the details haha), and the Lightning is also quite expensive for a multirole fighter.
How sweet would it be to fly a jet for your job, rather than being an excel monkey. F my life.
How sweet would it be to fly a jet for your job, rather than being an excel monkey. F my life.
I would imagine it would get monotonous just as well for pilots, especially on long flights. And you’re thousands of feet up.
F35 is overall more versatile than the f22 in terms of roles it can carry out and carries a larger payload (one of f22’s biggest weaknesses). Plus in absolute terms the f35 cost much less and can be manufactured more quickly. F35 will basically replace f16 and f18 while f22 replaces f15
It might be more versatile, but from what I’ve read, it’s not very stealthy (something to do with exhaust nozzle, shaping of the underside), a bit underpowered, and it’s still quite expensive. I mean we’re supposed to buy the multirole fighters in larger quantities, but IMHO considering the cost of the Lightning, I think it might be better to buy more F-22s and less F-35s and perhaps go with a foreign made multirole fighter.
Rydex Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How sweet would it be to fly a jet for your job, > rather than being an excel monkey. F my life. somewhere on the internet, on fighterpilotsforum.com a bored pilot just posted a comment: how sweet would it be to be an excel monkey for your job, rather than fly a jet. F my life.
ShintreH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It might be more versatile, but from what I’ve > read, it’s not very stealthy (something to do with > exhaust nozzle, shaping of the underside), a bit > underpowered, and it’s still quite expensive. > > > I mean we’re supposed to buy the multirole > fighters in larger quantities, but IMHO > considering the cost of the Lightning, I think it > might be better to buy more F-22s and less F-35s > and perhaps go with a foreign made multirole > fighter. You’re not understanding me here. F35 is more versatile, in other words, it does jobs the f22 can’t. The f22 is not a bomber or ground attack plane, it is an air to air system. It simply cannot do the F35’s job per the reasons I stated above. The F22 is “more stealthy” because it is less versatile. If it had been designed to hold a large external payload like the F35 it would basically be on the same footing. In essence it is more stealthy because it doesn’t have to do all the things the F35 has to. AND it still costs more in absolute terms. And underpowered, is completely irrelevant. Dogfights haven’t been won with turn and burn since the 60’s and the F35 isn’t designed to be a narrowly focused air to air weapon like the F22. The idea is a few escort F22’s to a larger number of F35’s in a sensitive mission if escort were deemed necessary, which in most cases it is not. And while you may “think it is better” to go foreign multirole or buy F22’s to perform jobs they physically can’t, I’m going to have to trust the Pentagon’s opinion over yours on this one.
ShintreH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It might be more versatile, but from what I’ve > read, it’s not very stealthy (something to do with > exhaust nozzle, shaping of the underside), a bit > underpowered, and it’s still quite expensive. > > > I mean we’re supposed to buy the multirole > fighters in larger quantities, but IMHO > considering the cost of the Lightning, I think it > might be better to buy more F-22s and less F-35s > and perhaps go with a foreign made multirole > fighter. You’re not understanding me here. F35 is more versatile, in other words, it does jobs the f22 can’t. The f22 is not a bomber or ground attack plane, it is an air to air system. It simply cannot do the F35’s job per the reasons I stated above. The F22 is “more stealthy” because it is less versatile. If it had been designed to hold a large external payload like the F35 it would basically be on the same footing. In essence it is more stealthy because it doesn’t have to do all the things the F35 has to. AND it still costs more in absolute terms. And underpowered, is completely irrelevant. Dogfights haven’t been won with turn and burn since the 60’s and the F35 isn’t designed to be a narrowly focused air to air weapon like the F22. The idea is a few escort F22’s to a larger number of F35’s in a sensitive mission if escort were deemed necessary, which in most cases it is not. And while you may “think it is better” to go foreign multirole or buy F22’s to perform jobs they physically can’t, I’m going to have to trust the Pentagon’s opinion over yours on this one.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t being a Army/Marine Officer an 8 year commitment, at least?
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ShintreH Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It might be more versatile, but from what I’ve > > read, it’s not very stealthy (something to do > with > > exhaust nozzle, shaping of the underside), a > bit > > underpowered, and it’s still quite expensive. > > > > > > I mean we’re supposed to buy the multirole > > fighters in larger quantities, but IMHO > > considering the cost of the Lightning, I think > it > > might be better to buy more F-22s and less > F-35s > > and perhaps go with a foreign made multirole > > fighter. > > You’re not understanding me here. F35 is more > versatile, in other words, it does jobs the f22 > can’t. The f22 is not a bomber or ground attack > plane, it is an air to air system. It simply > cannot do the F35’s job per the reasons I stated > above. The F22 is “more stealthy” because it is > less versatile. If it had been designed to hold a > large external payload like the F35 it would > basically be on the same footing. In essence it > is more stealthy because it doesn’t have to do all > the things the F35 has to. AND it still costs > more in absolute terms. And underpowered, is > completely irrelevant. Dogfights haven’t been won > with turn and burn since the 60’s and the F35 > isn’t designed to be a narrowly focused air to air > weapon like the F22. The idea is a few escort > F22’s to a larger number of F35’s in a sensitive > mission if escort were deemed necessary, which in > most cases it is not. And while you may “think it > is better” to go foreign multirole or buy F22’s to > perform jobs they physically can’t, I’m going to > have to trust the Pentagon’s opinion over yours on > this one. I don’t think you’re understanding either. The fact that it’s not very stealthy and underpowered is absolutely central. The point is, the plane is being marketed as a fifth generation fighter despite being weak in one of the key technologies, and yet it’s going to be priced very highly. Who cares about dogfights? Air superiority is going to be won and maintained beyond visual range, and that is what the F-22 is for. Planes like the F-35 cannot enter enemy airspace until the Raptors are used to win control of it first. That is why the AF needs many F-22s. Not a small number of F-22s escorting F-35s. Since you’ve invoked the “Pentagon’s opinion”. You should realize the AF is the main proponent of what I’m saying here.
Marine officer is 4 year, marine pilot 6
Listen genious, explain how underpowered has an impact on anything mentioned above in specific situational terminology. Particularly since the f35 has more power than the f16 it is replacing in the af? Explain also to me how the f35 isn’t stealthy enough with specific examples. We know it’s less concealed, but explain to me how it can’t acheive its mission. Secondly, the af is not the pentagon, it is a branch. Gates who does represent the pentagon is one of the strongest f35 advocates. He specifically recommended slashing f22 purchases earlier this year to free up budget for f35’s. The first f35’s going into action wil be serving the marines not the af (replacing the f18’s) and an even larger segment will then go to the navy. Both these branches need carrier capable fighters. The f22 doesn’t even have a carrier based version. Or should we just order f22’s anyway and let the pilots figure it out as it skips off the deck? An f35 will take any fourth gen in any dog fight, and the only nations with fifth gen are Russia and the uk. When you refer to “clearing enemy airspace”, the largest obstacle is always the enemy ground based air defense systems. Since the f22 can’t carry meaningful air ground cargo they’re useless in this regard. They’re payload is also so miniscule pilots would have to go out 3-4 times to achieve what a single f35 can do, that’s increasing both risks and costs. And simply put, a few f22’s is enough to clear airspace given the scale of air to air conflict that is forseeable. The troops need fighters that can support them on the ground as well as dogfight (which the f35 does quite well). F22’s would simply be circling around uselessly looking for nonexistant air targets. We got away from cold war relic dogfighting thoroughbreds for just this reason. The mix that is being recommended is in line with the f15 to f16/18 balance already in place. Not to mention that our existing force of 200ish f22’s far outnumbers any other fifth gen dogfighting force in existence and none of them have even seen combat once. Why? Because they’re useless in real war situations that involve ground attack.
If the af and people like you had your say they’d still be operating their super powerful and super useless blackbirds
I agree with Black Swan.
Those great WWIII dogfights with the revived Russians you’ll take part in…wait, what?
lol, dogfights these days are a blip on a screen, before 1 button is pressed to make the blip disappear
True, like a good videogame. US fighters usually have God mode, too. So they say…
CFA>MBA>F35>F22>F1 obviously