[STARMAN 352ND]

Originally Posted by flyXwire

Your mind and mine's are intellectually linked, buddy! Please stop using the Vulcan Mind Meld on me now.

"Live long and prosper" my friend..

I think most collectors have more in common then you think.
I'm a little surprised at the poll so far seems half of the voters don't like the F-22.
JP

[David Hingtgen]

It's a complex question. I think it looks great from above, ok from the front, but godawful from the sides. Whereas the YF-23 looks truly awesome from any angle.

[Shawn 507]

Sorry folks but they are both Butt Ugly. They may handle great and can do many wonderful things. They are just fugly. The AF and Navy get way too much money for threats that dont exsist, yet the Army and Marine Corps continue to make due with next to nothing. When was the last time we didn't have total control of the air? And when was the last great US Naval battle? How about throwing some of that money back our way.
- Shawn

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Sorry folks but they are both Butt Ugly. They may handle great and can do many wonderful things. They are just fugly. The AF and Navy get way too much money for threats that dont exsist, yet the Army and Marine Corps continue to make due with next to nothing. When was the last time we didn't have total control of the air? And when was the last great US Naval battle? How about throwing some of that money back our way.
- Shawn

You kidding right? Right? Surely...

FVD

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

You kidding right? Right? Surely...

FVD

Nope!

[Berkut76]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Nope!

I'm on Shawn's side here. What the US military (or any First World Military for that matter) needs right now in the air are "flying tanks" in both, helicopter and fixed wing form as well as flying "armored wagons" to carry out troop transports and evacuations in the hot zone. As things stand now, a 10-year old child using almost 70 year old design of DshK heavy machine gun can knock out anything we can throw for close air support, with an exception of A-10, of course.

Regards,

Sergey

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Nope!

OK, whatever.
Back to the topic of this thread...

FVD

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Berkut76

I'm on Shawn's side here. What the US military (or any First World Military for that matter) needs right now in the air are "flying tanks" in both, helicopter and fixed wing form as well as flying "armored wagons" to carry out troop transports and evacuations in the hot zone. As things stand now, a 10-year old child using almost 70 year old design of DshK heavy machine gun can knock out anything we can throw for close air support, with an exception of A-10, of course.

Regards,

Sergey

I can see you don't keep up with how we do close air support these days.

I won't get into an argument about this on this forum, certainly not in this thread. Suffice to say we don't do CAS at altitudes where a machine gun will make any difference. Except for helicopters, but that's something the Army already controls in the first place (AH-64?).

As for the "armored wagons," I could have sworn the Army had a few M-1s and Bradleys. Could be wrong...

FVD

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

You kidding right? Right? Surely...

FVD

Oh, and don't call me Shirley !!

[b-huj]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

Just look at the reflectiveness of the paint, it gives it a very distinct look that Gaincorp's version did not catch, maybe because the bird it represents did not have the same kind of metallic shiny paint the production models today have. I would like to see other manufacturers make a much more detailed, with finer panel lines and a more accurate model of the Raptor.