Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-22's Back In The Air Soon  
User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 663 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6773 times:

Looks like we will see these guys flying again soon.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-for-flight-after-inspections.html

JM


What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6696 times:

They didn't fix or change anything. Just because nothing was found does not mean it's OK. Either the 12 incidents over 3 years were imagined or they were real. If they were real, something is wrong which has not yet been corrected.

User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6686 times:

I have friends who are pilots in the Air Force who do not trust the F-22, and do not want to fly in it. Consider just how long the F-22 spent in design and testing compared to other aircraft like the F-15 and F-16, and you don't hear about all these issues with those. I stated something in an earlier thread on this issue, and I'll say it again. Close down the F-22 line, order more F-16's and the upgraded F-15's. In addition to being proven aircraft, doing that would create thousands of jobs.

Marc


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6585 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
Close down the F-22 line, o

The worlds finest aircraft, unmatched in performance, should hardly be 'shut down' because of a faulty or troublesome oxygen generating system. That would a ridiculous waste of money, technology, time and resources to throw away all that progress just because of a glitch in one system. You fix that problem, and you're back to having the best fighter in the world.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6534 times:

Last I looked...the line is being shut down.

User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6490 times:

I think the last F-22 started production in April of this year.

I disagree with shutting it down. I think shutting down the worthless F-35 and using that money to fund upgraded F-16's, F-15's and F-18's is a better option. Then build more F-22's. I read Russia plans on building nearly 1,000 T-50 type aircraft. China is also building the J-20. And here we sit with less than 185 F-22's and a aless capable F-35.

Good job America...

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6429 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 3):
The worlds finest aircraft

...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

Marc


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7210 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6415 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 3):
The worlds finest aircraft, unmatched in performance, should hardly be 'shut down' because of a faulty or troublesome oxygen generating system.

Finest based on..............
As for the onboad oxygen system, they have found nothing wrong with it, so unless you are privy to something the designers and US Air Force don't know...............

Hopefully in putting the a/c back into service thay are also putting in some type of warning system / monitor since at this stage they have no clue what affected the pilots leading to the crashes.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6368 times:

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
I think shutting down the worthless F-35 and using that money to fund upgraded F-16's, F-15's and F-18's is a better option.


America has boxed herself in by going down the path of no return and betting all on the F-35. That was risky and foolish as we are now seeing more and more.

A money pit now trying to get it all to work. In any case, how will all this stealth airframe technology work, when the ground and air based radars improve and are able to detect them? Recent air campaigns have taken out the radars as your first targets - after that, stealth doesn't matter much. Even if the radars see the incoming missiles aimed at them, it doesn't matter.

Wild Weasel missions are critical and the answer to blinding the enemy - not "stealth" airframes. Perhaps we can add quick response anti radar capabilities to existing frames.

But all in all, this blundering is not disastrous, because there is no great external threat of war to the USA anyway. Neither Russian or China are about to attack us - or even capable of it. It is disastrous to our efficient use of resources and adding capability, but not to our security in the short to medium term.

It is making contractors and lobbyists rich though. The wasted money is going somewhere - guess where.


User currently offlineFoxTwo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6327 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
But all in all, this blundering is not disastrous, because there is no great external threat of war to the USA anyway

I bet our grandparents said the same thing prior to WW2 .

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
Neither Russian or China are about to attack us

History sir - has a history of repeating itself. We live in the generation of entitlement. We inherited the freedom, we did not fight for it. It is foolish to not remain with the times.

People must realize that even if the F22 is the worlds best fighter - most people (especially those in other countries) , will never say so ! That's just the way it is. Imagine of Russia's head poncho came out and said "DAMN OUR T50 IS GOOD!!!! BUT STILL NOT AS GOOD AS THE F-22 !!!"

The US is still home to the worlds most sophisticated and well equipped Air Force.

Also, people forget what we do not know. This can be said for other countries as well, but do you really think every system in the F22 is declassified? How about the F35?


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6324 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

The day the Raptor is tested in a combat environment in an A/A engagement is the day WWIII starts. I think the Raptor can handle any junk coming from Russia or China.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
Recent air campaigns have taken out the radars as your first targets - after that, stealth doesn't matter much. Even if the radars see the incoming missiles aimed at them, it doesn't matter.

The F-35 isn't all about stealth as it is about its advanced avionics that none of the legacy fighters will ever get. Plus I suggest you talk to a real fighter pilot and ask him/her about flying over enemy airspace, every one of them will say they'd rather be "undetectable" by missiles.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6333 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

lol, really?

It can readily wipe the floor with the F-15, who HAS been tested in a combat environment. Then there is redflag and other war games, not to mention training, where these jets are pushed just as hard as if it was real combat. Must be a lemon cause it has yet flown around daring someone to shoot at it.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6226 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 10):
every one of them will say they'd rather be "undetectable" by missiles.


If I had a magic wand, I too would rather have.....fill in the blank. But that's not reality. And no aircraft is entirely undetectable, not even the F-22. Secondly if enemy radars are destroyed or suppressed, you are invisible. That's the only 100% way to ensure it.

So long as enemy radars can operate and get better at detecting our stealth aircraft - and they will - Stealth will not offer such a big advantage in the future.

Quoting FoxTwo (Reply 9):
History sir - has a history of repeating itself.

Sir, are you saying that Russia or China are actually intending to attack the USA? Or that there is real possibility of that happening? If yes, why would they? What would they gain?

The lessons of far flung wars by Super Powers with small countries like Vietnam and Iraq should surely have been learnt - even by a historian like yourself. IF the USA couldn't hold Vietnam or Afghanistan, how on earth would any power hold or conquer the USA? Even if we were all on horseback that wouldn't happen. Germany could not hold Russia either - too big - and they were close by geographically.

What you fear sir, has never in fact occurred om recent times. And I think of all people the Russians know this and I'm sure, so do the Chinese who can barely control Tibet and can't even bring Taiwan back to the motherland.

The F-22 and F-35s are too expensive and benefit the contractors more than anything. With a cost + contract, the more expensive and complex, the better - but not necessarily more capable, as we can now see with the Oxygen system on the F-22. A bottle would have done just as well and been cheaper and more reliable.

[Edited 2011-09-21 21:36:03]

User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6157 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
cheaper and more reliable.

An old Honda civic is cheap and reliable, fighter jets aren't either of those things.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
The F-22 and F-35s are too expensive and benefit the contractors more than anything.

Opinion. Let the Air Force make that call.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6064 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 13):
An old Honda civic is cheap and reliable

"Cheaper and more reliable" is not the same as "cheap and reliable". And are you saying that an regular pressurized Oxygen bottle system as used on most other fighters would not have worked better or that is would not have been cheaper?

Quoting powerslide (Reply 13):
Let the Air Force make that call.


As one who pays taxes and helps pay the Air Force's bills, I think I am entitled to an opinion. The US Air Force relies on taxpayers, and they have every right to say no, we're not paying for that. With your logic the US Air Force would be flying inferior leased 767 tankers by now, costing tens of billions of Dollars more than the deal finally got - with a better tanker to boot.

When it comes to money, the DoD is almost irresponsible. They can not even produce an audited budget and haven't for many years.

[Edited 2011-09-22 07:59:00]

User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6072 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

Marc

At my job I talk with military pilots on a fairly regualr basis. Recently I was talking with a Navy aggressor pilot who flies out at Navy Fallon (Top Gun). He said, while he had not flown against the F-22 personally, he has plenty of friends that had and it wasn't fun. He said the F-22 guys fly high and shoot far. You never see them and the only way you know they are around is, one minute you're flying and the next minute you're called "dead."

So maybe the F-22's are not "combat tested" as critics like to point out. But those pilots of F-16's, F-15's and F,18's are combat tested and they are getting beat by an airplane they never saw.

Take that for what it's worth.

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6009 times:

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
I read Russia plans on building nearly 1,000 T-50 type aircraft. China is also building the J-20. And here we sit with less than 185 F-22's and a aless capable F-35.

I think that 1000 production figure is fairly outrageous by any standard. The Russians haven't built 1000 SU-27s (or its variants) and that is far cheaper and less complex, I think.

They'll see that they don't need as many as that and that number will be cut dramatically.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5958 times:

Quoting j.mo (Reply 15):
He said the F-22 guys fly high and shoot far. You never see them and the only way you know they are around is, one minute you're flying and the next minute you're called "dead."

That's great! Sounds like they don't have to maneuver much at all to be effective.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5948 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 14):
And are you saying that an regular pressurized Oxygen bottle system as used on most other fighters would not have worked better or that is would not have been cheaper?



Your regular 10L LOX bottle would run out quickly on long flights. Along with that, its just another thing to worry about when deploying to an area that doesn't have lox compounds. A self-generating system is far more convenient in this sense. This system has been around for decades and only now are we seeing any serious issues. AFAIK, none of the Raptors that start outdoors have been affected by this issue.


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2609 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Let's be realistic, Russia will not attack the US. It has never happened, and if ever there was a time it could happen (Cold War), it is now over. Russia has downsized drastically although it was obviously because they simply couldn't afford to keep such a large air force. But also, when you look at things, they are doing fine whilst directly surrounded by many more "hostile" nations. You have China in the East, NATO in the west, and the various former Soviet republics, some of which have real problems with Russia. Yet, even with their downsized air force, Russia has managed to keep their ground. So tell me again why USA needs so many forces? Even if the USA cuts everything in half, they will still have the most powerful air force in the world by far. There is absolutely no need to have all the carriers they have either.

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
I read Russia plans on building nearly 1,000 T-50

Where did you read this? because it is absolutely inaccurate and untrue. Even if they DID want to, they simply can't afford it. But realistically they are looking to purchase about 200-250. Which is not far off the number of F-22s due to fly in the USAF.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 10):
I think the Raptor can handle any junk coming from Russia or China.

You don't even know everything about the F-22 (because a lot is classified). Are you telling me you somehow know enough about the T-50 or J-20 to already call them junk?!? What exactly are you basing this on exactly? The few photos that have popped up on the internet? I bet the designers themselves don't even know everything, because the test program isn't finished. Let the planes go through their tests, let them prove themselves, then make judgements. I sure hope that the USAF top brass doesn't think as ignorantly as you.


User currently offlineFoxTwo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5933 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Sir, are you saying that Russia or China are actually intending to attack the USA? Or that there is real possibility of that happening? If yes, why would they? What would they gain?

Nowhere was it stated or implied that Russian or China will be attacking the United States. This is very black and white - it's text. I did not say that, so please do assume or make an argument off information which was not submitted. Why would a country want to attack another? I am not quite sure where to begin . Pick a decade in the 20th century , we can start there. Why did Germany invade Poland? Why Did Russia invade Afghanistan? Why did the USA invade Vietnam? Why did Russia invade Georgia (21st century - just putting it forth for the sake of a recent example) , Why did Japan invade China? There are not definitive answers to these questions. Conquer and control to build that enormous empire oh so many have dreamed about. There is no real way to explain why a country wants to invade another. There are a variety of direct and indirect factors relating to this question - bottom line, it has happened, and it can happen. I bring forth the example of our grandparents because in all honesty, if you tried to convince them in 1938, that the next 7 years would send 70,000,000 to their deaths, I bet they would turn a blind eye and laugh. We do not like thinking about what we have to lose.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
What you fear sir, has never in fact occurred om recent times. And I think of all people the Russians know this and I'm sure, so do the Chinese who can barely control Tibet and can't even bring Taiwan back to the motherland.

Why does it need to happen in recent times? Recent times just makes the situation THAT MUCH MORE complicated given technology, and how globalized our world is.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
The F-22 and F-35s are too expensive and benefit the contractors more than anything. With a cost + contract, the more expensive and complex, the better - but not necessarily more capable, as we can now see with the Oxygen system on the F-22. A bottle would have done just as well and been cheaper and more reliable.

They are too expensive? Define expensive? A state of the art aircraft is generally a lot of money. Without this "state of the art" equipment, our civilization tends to ... "fall short". To be quite frank with you , I would rather live beside the United States and their F-22s, than oh lets say another "Canada" with a few f18s. Now mix in a nice big super power named "Russia" with a sophisticated air force. Let's say oh , screw the F-22 and other western front line equipment. Do you really think we would have as much of a say on the world scale? Of course not. I am not saying the F-22 Raptor is the deciding factor in all of our lives, but it is true that military equipment allows us to retain our world class lifestyles , etc.


User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5909 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 19):
Where did you read this? because it is absolutely inaccurate and untrue.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ssia%20Sees%201,000%20T-50%20Sales

And for the record, I very much respect Russian military fighters. I love the SU-30 class and I am sure the T-50 will be a remarkable airplane.

I think our F-35 is a complete waste of money. Well, put forth as a fighter/light bomber/FAC/ELINT/STOVL/VTOL aircraft it is. As a technology demonstrator/Lockheed Martin cash machine it serves it's purpose, just not it's price tag.

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5879 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 10):
I think the Raptor can handle any junk coming from Russia or China.

They can now, but what about in 20 years?

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
I think the last F-22 started production in April of this year.

It's sad to think of how many more capable F-22s could be built for the money being thrown at the F-35.

Quoting j.mo (Reply 5):
China is also building the J-20.

To be fair the J-20 is at least 6-7 years from being a real fighter plane. That puts them roughly where the US was in the early/mid 1990s with the ATF.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 8):
America has boxed herself in by going down the path of no return and betting all on the F-35. That was risky and foolish as we are now seeing more and more.

The F-35 is based on a fantasy that we are only now finding to be untrue after spending billions. This is why you shouldn't let politicians and bureaucrats design planes.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

It has gotten as close as possible without shooting and has acquitted itself well, to say the least.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
With a cost + contract, the more expensive and complex, the better - but not necessarily more capable, as we can now see with the Oxygen system on the F-22.

Cost plus contracts do have their place.

Quoting j.mo (Reply 21):
I think our F-35 is a complete waste of money. Well, put forth as a fighter/light bomber/FAC/ELINT/STOVL/VTOL aircraft it is. As a technology demonstrator/Lockheed Martin cash machine it serves it's purpose, just not it's price tag

I don't put much, if any, of the F-35's problems on Lockheed. They were dealt a tough hand and asked to do the impossible, and frankly it could have been way worse. The F-35 could have been a good, smaller stablemate to the F-22 if they had reigned in the requirements and capabilities. For that matter, we could have built a bunch more F-22s for the JSF money, and probably developed an attack version as well. And then use the change to develop a modernized A-10 and possibly restart production.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5792 times:

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 6):
...that has never been tested in a combat environment.

Marc

That you know of  
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 14):
The US Air Force relies on taxpayers, and they have every right to say no, we're not paying for that.

No, the tax payer has NO right to say they're not paying for that. Thats left up to the DoD and the GAO. The tax payer is left to create mis-informed/un-informed threads about their concerns.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):
That's great! Sounds like they don't have to maneuver much at all to be effective.

Exactly what we want...why fight fair?


User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5751 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
To be fair the J-20 is at least 6-7 years from being a real fighter plane...

So is the F-35....

JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
25 tommytoyz : Within limits, beyond which spending more on military creates diminishing returns with a reduction in security and standard of living. The Soviet Uni
26 Geezer : HaveBlue, you did it again ! You have articulated in very few words precisely what I have been thinking of HOW to say ! I completely agree with you. I
27 Geezer : Let's not get two completely different things mixed up here; Yes, the decision has been made to cease production f the Raptor with the completion of
28 Post contains links and images HaveBlue : Thanks Geezer! Glad to be of service You are completely and patently wrong here. There is a problem with the OBOGS system, that was the reason for th
29 Geezer : ( Looks like another "bean counter" )
30 checksixx : I'm well aware of how it works...Hint: I never said the system doesn't work that way. My opinion is that the tax payer has no right to dictate what i
31 BMI727 : Letting the taxpayer, and people elected by taxpayers, dictate purchases is how we end up with ideas like "Let's build one, cheap airframe that can d
32 Geezer : [quote=checksixx,reply=30]Go re-read my post that you quoted...I was replying to someone else...I'm not the one mixing anything up here I just re-read
33 ThePointblank : They didn't know in the first place that it was the OBOGS system. They know now that the system isn't at fault. They have. It's procedural. It's no c
34 longbowpilot : Great Post Point. I like the last part of what you wrote. It reminds me that anything we operate in the U.S. DOD is made by the lowest bidder. So go
35 Mortyman : Problem is that several countries, not only the USA, has invested alot of money in the F35 program, money that is lost to us . What are you gonna off
36 JoeCanuck : Lockheed took the contract. They said they could build all 3 versions of the plane. They didn't have to take the contract, but they did. So, I do put
37 checksixx : They were awarded the contract...they didn't take anything. They have built all 3 versions of the plane. Saying that you put all the F-35 problems on
38 Max Q : You just can't stuff three radically different requirements into one Aircraft. That lesson should have been learned a long time ago when Mcnamara trie
39 bennett123 : I am frankly surprised that members from a democratic country seem to be saying that the taxpayers and their representatives should have no role in de
40 j.mo : I don't pretend to know the nuances of that contract. As an American I am embarrassed by contractors such as Lockheed Martin. I'm pretty sure the pri
41 JoeCanuck : They were awarded the contract because they bid for the contract. They said they could build the planes for a certain price, with certain specs by a
42 kanban : Partially correct, however Congress meddles in these contracts through earmarks that dictate systems be added, specific vendors be used many time to
43 Spacepope : None yet on USAFA football flyovers. Just B-1s and F-15s so far this year, we usually get a few F-22s though, will keep an eye out on Saturdays. Who
44 Baroque : Thank you for that illumination Mr Rumsfeld. I now fully understand. PS. I am not really sure I forgot what I did not know?????
45 lorm : Heard from a few people that live on and near Hickam/PHNL that they've seen them in air the within the past week.
46 ha763 : Correct. The HIANG's F-22s are flying. They make their left turn over my work place at the airport during landing.
47 AWACSooner : Considering I was at the Red Flag in 2009 where it was first introduced into a "combat" environment (and those of you who know anything about RF's kn
48 Post contains images Oroka : Best kind of weapon is the one you never have to use.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-22's Back In The Air Soon
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Alaska Members: A C-133 Back In The Air? posted Sun Dec 15 2002 01:17:48 by FlagshipAZ
Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force posted Mon Aug 15 2011 15:21:07 by ghYHZ
B-29 Back In The Skies? posted Mon Nov 15 2010 14:28:06 by CBPhoto
Vulcan In The Air Again! posted Fri May 9 2008 08:21:22 by Opso1
How Many Warbirds In The Air? posted Mon Jul 30 2007 04:27:54 by Waterpolodan
Anybody In The Air Training Corps? posted Sat Mar 10 2007 23:02:44 by A320ajm
It Sure Is Different In The Air Force posted Thu Jan 11 2007 14:08:28 by Army15P
Ultralights In The Air Force posted Mon Jul 31 2006 02:13:06 by Mariscal35
Ultralights In The Air Force posted Mon Oct 11 2004 22:06:29 by Mariscal35
Flying Planes In The Air Force posted Sun Oct 19 2003 18:09:24 by Continental
CV-22 Back In The Air At Edwards posted Thu Sep 12 2002 05:04:37 by Airforce1995
Alaska Members: A C-133 Back In The Air? posted Sun Dec 15 2002 01:17:48 by FlagshipAZ
Putting "Royal" Back In Canadian Air Force posted Mon Aug 15 2011 15:21:07 by ghYHZ
B-29 Back In The Skies? posted Mon Nov 15 2010 14:28:06 by CBPhoto
Vulcan In The Air Again! posted Fri May 9 2008 08:21:22 by Opso1
How Many Warbirds In The Air? posted Mon Jul 30 2007 04:27:54 by Waterpolodan
Anybody In The Air Training Corps? posted Sat Mar 10 2007 23:02:44 by A320ajm
It Sure Is Different In The Air Force posted Thu Jan 11 2007 14:08:28 by Army15P
Ultralights In The Air Force posted Mon Jul 31 2006 02:13:06 by Mariscal35
Ultralights In The Air Force posted Mon Oct 11 2004 22:06:29 by Mariscal35

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format