chuck says:

The reason we spend billions on jets and other military hardware instead of universal health care is because jets are cheaper.

Sinn Fein says:

The War of Poverty: 1 Trillion Dollars spent since LBJ and the poor are still poor. How many more Trillions do have to spend to make sure that they stay poor? Would have been cheaper to give every poor man woman and child a million dollars…and they’d STILL be as poor after one heck of a short ride.

Cool airplane but missle technology is getting so sophisticated and cheap that billion dollar manned planes are toast in the not-so-distant future.

Mark T. says:

Sin Fein, the reason we need the F-22 is BECAUSE missile technology has become so good. The F-22 is practically immune to ground based radar guided missiles and, with its incredible maneuverability, an enemy fighter with heat seekers will be hard pressed to get a clean shot (that is, if they aren’t destroyed before they even see the F-22).

The F-22 is just the result of an ever continuing measure/counter-measure/counter-counter-measure evolution in military aircraft.

In twenty years or so, the Thunderbirds will probably be flying either F-22’s or F-35’s. What a spectacular show that will be!

Also, for you guys that love/hate the V-22, be sure to go and watch the civilian tiltrotor, the Bell-Agusta BA609. Click the “More Videos” tab and look under the Business Aviation link.

mv says:

Sad to say, but I think we’ve come to the point where these aircrafts are becoming obsolete. Even though these planes are providing a great tactical advantage in many wartime situations, pushbutton warfare and nuclear weapons now mean that almost no one will be superior anymore in terms of warfare. We now live in world where nuclear disaster is being held back by a very thin thread. Why should we be creating these planes to gain respect and superiority when we already have the power to destroy entire cities without leaving the comfort of our own homelands.

Sarcasmatron says:

Was this video shot by a drunken 5 year old having a seizure? Tripods and video stabilization are cheap, right?

The guy in the little box has a name: Jack.

Jack hasn’t heard of the voice over concept.

Cool plane, though.

Mark T. says:

deowil,

“The small problem is that if you made a couple of hundred small cheap planes that were fast enough to catch it they could take it down even though the whole bunch cost less money.”

Um, they already exist. They are called missiles. Current and near future missile technology has little chance of taking down the F-22. By the time the missile technology catch up to the F-22’s technology, the F-22 will be ready for retirement and the next super-fighter will be coming on-line.

Anyway, a high-tech air-to-air missile costs upwards of $500,000, not including the cost of the aircraft required to carry it and to launch it. A high-tech surface-to-air system with launcher and crew can cost several million dollars. AND it can only be positioned at one place at a time.

Knock out that launcher from 30,000 feet (easily out of range of even the most modern missile systems to track and fire on the stealthy F-22) and you are back to zero defenses. The F-22 still wins.

The fact is that the F-22 is staying ahead of the missile technology, not necessarily the aging Russian fighter designs. But, if by chance a Mig pilot wants to get into a gun battle, it will still lose.

Wretched Gnu says:

Wow — these’ll work great against all those terrorist jet planes!

Your tax dollars at work. The fuel burned for that demo = 3 years of gas for your car.

bobbo says:

#47–ECA–nice review. Well done. I don’t know for a fact, but I would NOT be surprised if those f-22 missles could hone in on your big metal block of an engine and those big wheels?

Plus, I don’t think the jets would need to actually fire at you, just a high speed pass might do it?