well think about it, if you were a country like England you would probably buy f-35 or cheap planes like that. However if you are a country like the U.S price isn't really an issue, and you can buy just as many F-22 as another country can buy F-35 (or whatever low cost plane they buy).

Also your example wasn't really that great. A more realistic example :
50 F-22 and 150 MiGs. (1:3 ration sound good?) In a event like that I would think the 22's would win. What do you think.

Well... that would be the case, if the US had infinite money like it does in Civilizations with cheats on. The thing is, the US doesn't have that much more money than the UK does (there's also the fact that the F-35 isn't very cheap, but let's ignore that for now)... and the F-22 requires very specialized manufacturing facilities, whereas the MiG could be built in a half-dead Soviet industrial complex. Oh, and the multi-trillion-dollar deficit that the US is carrying right now thanks to stupid Bush.

And yes, the F-22s would win (just barely) after sustaining dreadful losses. It would end with the MiGs retreating with half their number dead, but having inflicted enough damage that when they come back with reinforcements (which they will - another characteristic of Soviet weaponry is fast manufacturing) the Raptors won't stand a chance.

On another subject: I pre-ordered Quantum of Solace (for PC) and Tom Clancy's EndWar (for PSP)!

The F-35 is a lot cheaper then the F-22, with the F-22 being around 137 million, and the f-35 costing around 80 million. It doesn't really matter that much that the U.S has massive dept, it's obvious that they will never try to pay back, and the Chinese (who we owe all that money to) will never really try to ask for it back.

In the senerio thing: think about it, how many MiG's will be taken out with beyound visual range missiles? At least 50 assuming each F-22 fires two of them and 1 misses. When it comes down to the dog fights the F-22's could stand their own it a fight with a 2:1 ratio against them.

The BVRAAMs (in the F-22's case, it's the compact variant of the AMRAAM, the AIM-120C) take up a lot more space than the AIM-9X close-combat missiles, so the Raptors will be sacrificing their short range combat capability by a lot.

On the other hand, if the Fulcrum pilots decide to screw their shitty BVRAAMs and stick with their plenty capable short-range missiles, they will most likely kick the shit out of the outnumbered Raptors even after taking losses from the AMRAAMs (which, I should mention, are not Jesus-missiles... they miss, too). Remember, the MiG doesn't always carry all missiles, but if they DO choose to do so, and load up to their wingtips with AA-11s, which are just as if not more maneuverable than those Sidewinders the Raptors are packing, they'll be loaded with almost twice the number of missiles the F-22s have. In short, even after a few Fulcrums have bit the dust, the rest can just FILL THE SKY with missiles, all of which are racing towards our friends at Mach whatever. Even the Raptor's high stealth won't help when each pilot is being overloaded with missile launch profiles every five seconds... they'll be too busy evading to even get off a shot. Sooner or later (okay, sooner RATHER than later), quite a few of those Archers will score a hit and we can kiss bye-bye to one hell of an expensive airplane. Or a few of them. Or... a LOT.

You make those Fulcrums Su-47s (which, with their utterly superior maneuverability and utterly inferior stability could probably outmaneuver quite a few of those AMRAAMs), toss in the Berkut's superior weapons load capability (they have internal bays PLUS external hardpoints, which the F-22 doesn't have) into the mix, and you've got yourself a very embarrassing and very expensive dogfight for the USAF. Even if the Raptors DO win, which they very well could (depends on how good those pilots are), the USAF would have lost a lot more money than the Russians/Soviets/Ultranationalists/Chinese, which makes it a logistical defeat rather than a military one. Remember, missiles aren't free, and those AMRAAMs cost a fortune.

If I were you, I'd stick with loading the F-22s with Sidewinders... and, oh, scrambling the nearest squadron of less costly F-15Cs to nail those retarded Fulcrums (or Berkuts) who are too busy chasing the Americans' legendary Eff-Twenty-Two. F-15s, when you get down to it, are no slouches in dogfights (in fact they kick ass like there's no tomorrow). Oh, and they don't cost as much.

Scratch that. The best option is to be a good Boy Scout and be prepared... with a whole lot of Avengers placed on standby. I mean seriously, how can you miss 150 non-stealth jets coming right at you? So the moment those retarded little Russkies pop up, you give them a hearty welcome with half a million surface-to-air missiles (which they have no way of fighting against, having loaded up with Archers instead of air to surface missiles). They'd be stupid not to retreat... that is, if they still have enough planes left to follow any semblance of a command chain.

In conclusion, you can't just hope to throw F-22s at anything and hope to come out with anything close to a complete victory. The successful repelling of a sizable enemy threat requires mastery of multiple resources available to you, as well as the versatility to break lines when needed to trick the enemy into pushing too far and depleting their resources. Any commander must see all the options at hand - say, do I have jamming units on site? Is a diversionary strike to draw away a part of the enemy force feasible? Should I retreat and draw a more prepared ambush to destroy the enemy force? and so on. Force and technological superiority will not win battles, commander!

Dismissed!

(If you haven't noticed, I didn't actually think all this up on my own. There's a guy who lives across the hall who wants to go to West Point... I asked him because he knows more shit than I could hope to ever think about picking up.)

I know that just throwing in raptors will not always work, thats the reason why the U.S is at the top, they have superior everything in pretty much every field.

In the end, the F-22 is still the most mother fu***** badass/kickass plane out there

Basically yes.

Now if you said 'aircraft', I would disagree and say that the MH-60L Blackhawk DAP Firehawk was...

If you don't know what that is, imagine an AC-130 gunship.

Now imagine it on rotors, able to hover at will and fly off of tiny destroyers.

Now imagine it with smaller, but more accurate and just as devastating weaponry.

Now imagine it being able to carry special forces operatives behind enemy lines and picking them back up again.

Finally, rejoice and thank god that the Firehawk is on OUR side, not theirs. Oh, and then laugh as insurgents get snuffed out like candles on some 100-year-old grandma's birthday cake.

Damn that sounds really cool, To the wiki!
Oh by the way, I got a 20 000¥ sniper bb gun. It's pretty sweet. I'll post a pic of it soon.

Abut that firehawk thing you where talking about, you can't really compare it with a f-22. Or any planes. The purpose of each is different.

haha this forum is becoming our private chat sever thing...
We need more members...

Let me put it to you this way: the F-22 is badass like Ironman is badass. The DAP is badass like Rambo is badass. See the distinction? Sleek and high-tech and clean and deadly badass, and BOOM BANG BOOM BOOM BOOM Rat-tat-tat-tat guns blazing bad guys being blown to bits with sheer firepower badass.