Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Fly Boys - 5th Generation Fighters


Recommended Posts

Nice piece of propaganda.

Now where does the money come from.

F22 unit cost is $150 Million.

F35A unit cost is $122 Million.

F35B unit cost is $150 Million.

F35C unit cost is $139.5 Million.

NATIONAL DEBT $15.4 TRILLION.

How are going to pay for these planes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

These may be the most expensive planes to date but look at it this way, would you want your child flying these or an old F 15 or F 16. Again, air superiority is definitely an issue, especially to the Grunt on the ground.

 

My guess is that these will be the last piloted aircraft that we will field for air to air interceptors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be the most expensive that money can buy but how do we pay for them?

And more important how could we leave the $15.4 TRILLION DEBT for our children?

Is it worth this debt doubling by the time they reach adulthood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if the politicians would stop skimming money off to friends that contribute to their campaigns, we could have both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody could figure out how to get the government people to run the government like a household or business economy we might get a start on it. Sending jobs overseas, refusing to acknowledge our limitations is certainly not the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice piece of propaganda.

Now where does the money come from.

F22 unit cost is $150 Million.

F35A unit cost is $122 Million.

F35B unit cost is $150 Million.

F35C unit cost is $139.5 Million.

NATIONAL DEBT $15.4 TRILLION.

How are going to pay for these planes?

 

The money comes from taxes.

It is used to pay for one of the few things that are enumerated in

the Constitution as a duty of the U.S. Government.

 

The problem of 15.4 Trillion in over spending is real, and needs to be

solved, and that is best achieved by getting the Government out of the

business of funding things that are not in the Constitution.

 

It's not hard, but some people continue to want the government to take from

some and give to others, for things that are not in it's proper sphere of

authority. It makes some people feel good when the government does this,

but it's really very wrong.

 

I'd be happy if the Government gave me back what I paid into it's various

programs, even without interest, if it would only get out of all the

non-constitutional activities . . .

 

YMMV,

 

Shadow Catcher

 

btw - our fighting troops deserve the best technology and weapons in the world, if I have to

pay taxes I'd rather it go there than into some Solyndra or other false enterprise.

 

Also - the government is not a business, and can't be run like one.

It can be capped in it's spending though, and a constitutional ammendment

limiting it to a balanced budget at a rate of 18 - 21 % of GDP would accomplish that very well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My guess is that these will be the last piloted aircraft that we will field for air to air interceptors.

 

 

I don't think so. They'll still have pilots and guns for a long time to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two sons in the marine corp a little over 10 years for both of them. They seem to like the fly boys and in more than one occaison they have gotten them out of some serious pinches. They dont tell their mom that. I just wish I could ear mark my taxes. So much for bullets for the jar heads so much for the fly boys. I would be happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that the US military industrial complex keeps coming up with the most expensive toy in the toy box.

You don't need a $150 million aircraft to drop a dumb 100 pound bomb on a mud hut. Seems to me the less than $15 million A-10 was doing that just fine.

 

The stealth capability that costs so much will not protect the plane/pilot from a bullet.

Ground support aircraft must be rugged. Most jets are not rugged. A10 being one exception as it was designed as a tank killer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that the US military industrial complex keeps coming up with the most expensive toy in the toy box.

You don't need a $150 million aircraft to drop a dumb 100 pound bomb on a mud hut. Seems to me the less than $15 million A-10 was doing that just fine.

 

The stealth capability that costs so much will not protect the plane/pilot from a bullet.

Ground support aircraft must be rugged. Most jets are not rugged. A10 being one exception as it was designed as a tank killer.

Every shield can be penetrated - every bullet can be stopped.

 

That, in a nut shell, is the race we are in. Europe, China and frankly, everyone else out there is always looking for a

better bullet and a better shield; we are always building a better shield and a better bullet. The race goes on, and victory

is to the swiftest.

 

The second law of Thermo-God-Damnics reads - You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game.

Still - you have to play if you want to win. The military-industrial complex (what ever the heck that is) comes up with the

coolest and bestest stuff around, but no bucks, no Buck Rogers.

 

The stealth capability will protect a plane from being detected, and flying at 40K feet at mach frantic will protect you from a bullet

or a SAM. Jet's are not intended to be tough in the sense of getting smacked around - jets are tough in the sense of pulling 5-7 G's

at mach frantic while enabling a pilot to fire on 6-10 enemy aircraft simultaneously. If my 6 $500K missiles will kill your 6 $25 - 45M

aircraft - guess who's going to win this little thing . . .

 

Having BVR kill range will protect you from an enemy. killing them before they know you're even in the theatre is great. Killing 6 or

more at a time is better yet.

 

If all you have to do is kill mud hut's - you got it easy. If you have to kill a hardened target that is making nuclear weapon

materials and it's 250 feet underground and behind enough concrete to stop a 350KT surface laydown nuke, you have a different issue,

and a few bunker busters will not go a'miss.

 

The A-10 is a wonderful plane - but it has a severe limitation - crew workload is lethal. We lost more A-10 pilots in training because the

single operator is flying the plane and fighting the war, then from enemy fire. That effort is taxing, tree-top flying while fighting a war

will get you real dead real fast. Cumulo-Granite is not your friend.

 

Sorry if you think we're spending too much on our troops and on our weapons - we will just have to dissagree on that . . . .

 

The state of warfare has migrated a lot since Vietnam, a lot. We still have the best troops, and the best weaponry. I hope to God that never changes.

 

Shadow Catcher

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Shadowcatcher your planning on dropping bombs on mud huts in a tactical situation from 40k ft.

 

One of the most important tasks is ground support at least for the Marines.

The F35B is the vstol version intended to replace the AV-8B Harrier to provide the Marines close ground support.

That means it would most likely expose a $150 million aircraft to ground fire. Stealth and mach frantic wont protect the plane from ground fire.

Most planes are not capable of flying Mach anything at sea level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Shadowcatcher your planning on dropping bombs on mud huts in a tactical situation from 40k ft.

 

One of the most important tasks is ground support at least for the Marines.

The F35B is the vstol version intended to replace the AV-8B Harrier to provide the Marines close ground support.

That means it would most likely expose a $150 million aircraft to ground fire. Stealth and mach frantic wont protect the plane from ground fire.

Most planes are not capable of flying Mach anything at sea level.

No - I'm saying that mud huts are a small fraction of the issues that the Air Force has to deal with.

A very small part of the overall strategic mission for the US Air Force. Only recently has the USAF

adopted the CAS role for the Army; the Navy and Marines themselves do their own CAS, at least mostly.

 

And you're right - for the Marines, the ground support role is very important. For the US Air Force it is a part of the mission,

but not the only part, sorry to say. Not the one they claimed to want, or chose either.

 

The B model is a problem for every marine pilot involved, since it involves carrying 4000 pounds of inert motor around while flying combat,

and hoping that it will start up again at the mission end, so that they can do a short field landing. It is an abomination - but our military

decision makers chose it, so we will soldier on in spite. I think the Boeing solution was better, but what would I know . . . .

 

It is reminiscent of McNamaras folly - the F-111. Another plane chosen to be the be-all end-all of common service aircraft that was supposed

to be all things to all people. They ignored the F-4 Phantom that was doing that job and proceeded on with the F-111 to do the dame job - it

failed miserably.

 

Even CAS requires more than straffing runs, usually you're putting ordinance on the hadji's, from SDB's to Mavericks to JDAM's on target, and

many good platforms can do that these days, but more is better.

 

My point was that if you're going to complain about 15.4 Trillion dollars over budget spending by this Government - the militaries attempts to

protect this nation are NOT the place to point at. There are arguments to be made over one weapon system versus another, and which one is

Cat Shit hot, but the arguement that we shouldn't buy weapon systems for our troops because we are spending too much on social welfare won't

fly with me. That's the genesis of this discussion, parsing weapon system effectiveness and such is a diversion from the main point.

 

Shadow Catcher

 

BTW - the Harrier is a great old airplane - but easily defeated by MANPADS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LL, You are right it is a cool video. But it wasn't made to be a cool video per se it was made to be used as propaganda to help justify spending billions on aircraft. And of course to help keep the interest in providing the very best that TAXPAYOR money can pay for.

 

 

Shadowcatcher, I agree F111 was poorly done. Too big a plane, mission creep. SECDEF creep, bad design. etc. If the plane looked more like the F14 or F15E it might have been successful. (F14 was derived from F111 Navy subset.)

I strongly suspect that most AF missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were of the mud hut busting not air defense.

 

My belief is that F22 and F35 are aimed at an enemy that does not exist yet. (Note the word yet. The chinese are a most favoured nation and not yet our enemy.)

If the world conflicts that USA gets sucked into (for whatever reason, Iraq was not a good reason) are like Iraq and Afghanistan, we need more low cost/perhaps lower tech solutions. Certainly not $100 million plus aircraft to bust mud huts or a bunch of rag heads hiding in a mud hut. I do hope the pilotless drones are up to the job.

 

As for how to fund huge defense acquisitions; so long as the libs/anti defense control WH and Senate they will get as much spending on social junk as defense. Only way a budget gets passed. So you want more expensive toys, libs want to continue/increase social junk spending and up, up, up, up goes the national debt.

 

Time to get off my soapbox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LL, You are right it is a cool video. But it wasn't made to be a cool video per se it was made to be used as propaganda to help justify spending billions on aircraft. And of course to help keep the interest in providing the very best that TAXPAYOR money can pay for.

 

 

Shadowcatcher, I agree F111 was poorly done. Too big a plane, mission creep. SECDEF creep, bad design. etc. If the plane looked more like the F14 or F15E it might have been successful. (F14 was derived from F111 Navy subset.)

I strongly suspect that most AF missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were of the mud hut busting not air defense.

 

My belief is that F22 and F35 are aimed at an enemy that does not exist yet. (Note the word yet. The chinese are a most favoured nation and not yet our enemy.)

If the world conflicts that USA gets sucked into (for whatever reason, Iraq was not a good reason) are like Iraq and Afghanistan, we need more low cost/perhaps lower tech solutions. Certainly not $100 million plus aircraft to bust mud huts or a bunch of rag heads hiding in a mud hut. I do hope the pilotless drones are up to the job.

 

As for how to fund huge defense acquisitions; so long as the libs/anti defense control WH and Senate they will get as much spending on social junk as defense. Only way a budget gets passed. So you want more expensive toys, libs want to continue/increase social junk spending and up, up, up, up goes the national debt.

 

Time to get off my soapbox.

You know what - we could parse the righteousness of one tool over another, but at the root - we agree.

I'd like to buy you a beer next time we meet, I think you love this country as much as anyone else here - and I'll buy the first round!

 

Ride safe . .

 

SC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hacker, as a retired Marine, I learned to make do with lousy, worn out, obsolete equipment and have seen friends die because of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hacker, that is why I take the position that top of the line equipment is a must for the people that lay it on the line for us. We may not be facing a threat level that bests what we currently have but it's better to have it before you find out that the enemy has better equipment than we have. We found that out in December 7th 1941 when we didn't have a plane that was capable of keeping up with the Japanese Zeke and it took until 1944 to field the F6F Hellcat.

 

I have kin in the Military now and I worry all the time that the equipment they are issued may not be up to the task of bringing them home to their wife and kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We found that out in December 7th 1941 when we didn't have a plane that was capable of keeping up with the Japanese Zeke and it took until 1944 to field the F6F Hellcat.

 

Not entirely accurate, the P-40, F4F Wildcat, P-38 and P47 could all handle the Zero if they fought on their terms, which was to keep the speed up, attack and then use the superior diving speed to dive away and repeat. They only got in trouble if they slowed down to fight on the Zero's terms where the Zero's superior climb and turning ability favored it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that the US military industrial complex keeps coming up with the most expensive toy in the toy box.

You don't need a $150 million aircraft to drop a dumb 100 pound bomb on a mud hut. Seems to me the less than $15 million A-10 was doing that just fine.

 

The stealth capability that costs so much will not protect the plane/pilot from a bullet.

Ground support aircraft must be rugged. Most jets are not rugged. A10 being one exception as it was designed as a tank killer.

 

The F-15, F-16 & F-18 are all designs from the mid 1970's, yes they've tweaked the electronics and the engins a bit, but it is sill mostly 1970's technology. There are any number of planes now in service that are superior to the F-15, F-16 & F-18, some in service with allies and some in service with less friendly countries such as China and Russia who are perfectly willing to sell those planes to anybody with enough cash.

 

The F-22 & F-35 aren't going to get down in the mud, they're going to fly around at 20-25,000 feet dropping laser or gps guided weapons.

 

We'll just have to figure out some way to pay for it, because we really can't afford not to have the best military.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely accurate, the P-40, F4F Wildcat, P-38 and P47 could all handle the Zero if they fought on their terms, which was to keep the speed up, attack and then use the superior diving speed to dive away and repeat. They only got in trouble if they slowed down to fight on the Zero's terms where the Zero's superior climb and turning ability favored it.

 

 

The P38 and P47's weren't navy operated planes and as such, if they even were in the Pacific at the start, their impact was negligible. The P 40's and Wildcats were able to fight the Zekes but not one on one. Hit and run attacks on unsuspecting pilots do not make them a superior aircraft. The only advantage that the P 40's had in a 1 on 1 fight with the Zekes was that the Zekes had poor left turn characteristics and less protection for the pilot. That is why Chenault taught the Flying Tigers the hit and run technique and to fly in pairs. The Thatch Weave was developed to counter the advantages the Zekes had in maneuverability speed and range, or at least to minimize them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-15, F-16 & F-18 are all designs from the mid 1970's, yes they've tweaked the electronics and the engins a bit, but it is sill mostly 1970's technology. There are any number of planes now in service that are superior to the F-15, F-16 & F-18, some in service with allies and some in service with less friendly countries such as China and Russia who are perfectly willing to sell those planes to anybody with enough cash.

 

The F-22 & F-35 aren't going to get down in the mud, they're going to fly around at 20-25,000 feet dropping laser or gps guided weapons.

 

We'll just have to figure out some way to pay for it, because we really can't afford not to have the best military.

 

 

And in my humble opinion, for the job of tactical and strategic low level bombing, the B52H is fantastic and should be re produced by Boeing. They can build quite a few of them for the cost of a B2 Spirit. They are not as stealthy but flying low, stealth is not as great as at altitude.. I am puzzled why they continue to use those old jet engines though. They could attach larger, more efficient engines with much higher thrust output and use fewer of them with an increase in payload, range and speed.

 

 

Buff aint dead yet,.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grumman F6F was in action by September of 1943 not 1944.

The Grumman F4F held its own by use of superior tactics and was successful.

It was actually produced throughout World War II (granted as the FM2).

Its success as a fighter against Japanese bombers is best seen in the battle of the Coral Sea.

Where TWO aircraft carriers were put out action. One due to bomb damage (dauntless) the other due to loss of aircrew/aircraft.

Both carriers were not able to be at the Battle of Midway.

 

Buying the most expensive aircraft does not make it the BEST.

With the F22 and the F35 we have 2nd problem in addition to cost is that they both involve the SAME manufacturer.

This does not help keep our Military industrial complex alive and vibrant.

 

The Air Force and Navy Brass are attracted to very expensive toys like moths and other bugs to light at night.

They all want to buy the MOST expensive toy in the toy box to outdo each other. And then justify the purchase by claiming that the toy can perform so many functions.

The F22 and F35 expense is apparently in part due to stealth technology useful in air supremacy and some other missions.

But neither plane really is what should be used in ground support role.

That mission historically has required a plane that has range, maneuverability, high loiter time, great ordnance load, and above all the ability to take ground fire.

Note ground fire is not defeatable by stealth technology.

Historically successful ground attack aircraft include (in no particular order) P-47, F6F Hellcat, F4U corsair, IL-2 Stormavik (sp), A-10, and perhaps the SU-25 Frogfoot.

Big radial engines and armor help to keep pilots alive and aircraft in the air.

I doubt the F22 and F35 are that survivable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The P38 and P47's weren't navy operated planes and as such, if they even were in the Pacific at the start, their impact was negligible. The P 40's and Wildcats were able to fight the Zekes but not one on one. Hit and run attacks on unsuspecting pilots do not make them a superior aircraft. The only advantage that the P 40's had in a 1 on 1 fight with the Zekes was that the Zekes had poor left turn characteristics and less protection for the pilot. That is why Chenault taught the Flying Tigers the hit and run technique and to fly in pairs. The Thatch Weave was developed to counter the advantages the Zekes had in maneuverability speed and range, or at least to minimize them.

 

The P-38 & P47 operated down around New Guinea, the P-47 from mid 1943 and the P-38 from late 1942 and their impact on the Pacific war was not negligable.

 

Fighter design is a compromise, for the Zero to get the range and maneuverability, it was lightly built, with no pilot armor or self sealing fuel tanks. This enabled the turning and climbing to be very good, but the Zero was poor in a dive and most of the time a burst of API .50 caliber anywhere but the wingtips would result in a kill.

 

In comparison, American aircraft more heavily built, had self sealing tanks, armor plate behind the pilot and more firepower. They could take more punishment and they could dive away and then trade the speed for altitude. It's about using your aircraft's advantages and not playing to the enemy's advantage and as long as American pilots played to their aircraft's strengths they usually came out ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, guys...I just thought it was a cool video of some neat planes.... :unsure:

 

LL

 

100% and I support developing and giving our military the best. Period.

 

The Chinese and Russians are catching up to us...can't let that happen.

 

Flame away, but my stance is unwaivering ;)

 

Thanks for the cool video LL

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice piece of propaganda.

Now where does the money come from.

F22 unit cost is $150 Million.

F35A unit cost is $122 Million.

F35B unit cost is $150 Million.

F35C unit cost is $139.5 Million.

NATIONAL DEBT $15.4 TRILLION.

How are going to pay for these planes?

 

Start here:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/28/report-government-wasting-tens-billions-dollars-annually-on-duplication-overlap/

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Grumman F6F was in action by September of 1943 not 1944.

The Grumman F4F held its own by use of superior tactics and was successful.

It was actually produced throughout World War II (granted as the FM2).

Its success as a fighter against Japanese bombers is best seen in the battle of the Coral Sea.

Where TWO aircraft carriers were put out action. One due to bomb damage (dauntless) the other due to loss of aircrew/aircraft.

Both carriers were not able to be at the Battle of Midway.

 

Buying the most expensive aircraft does not make it the BEST.

With the F22 and the F35 we have 2nd problem in addition to cost is that they both involve the SAME manufacturer.

This does not help keep our Military industrial complex alive and vibrant.

 

The Air Force and Navy Brass are attracted to very expensive toys like moths and other bugs to light at night.

They all want to buy the MOST expensive toy in the toy box to outdo each other. And then justify the purchase by claiming that the toy can perform so many functions.

The F22 and F35 expense is apparently in part due to stealth technology useful in air supremacy and some other missions.

But neither plane really is what should be used in ground support role.

That mission historically has required a plane that has range, maneuverability, high loiter time, great ordnance load, and above all the ability to take ground fire.

Note ground fire is not defeatable by stealth technology.

Historically successful ground attack aircraft include (in no particular order) P-47, F6F Hellcat, F4U corsair, IL-2 Stormavik (sp), A-10, and perhaps the SU-25 Frogfoot.

Big radial engines and armor help to keep pilots alive and aircraft in the air.

I doubt the F22 and F35 are that survivable.

 

The technology and tactics have changed and your historical examples do not take that into account. Today's aircraft use guided weapons that can be used above the upper altitude limits for both ground fire and man portable surfice to air missiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And in my humble opinion, for the job of tactical and strategic low level bombing, the B52H is fantastic and should be re produced by Boeing. They can build quite a few of them for the cost of a B2 Spirit. They are not as stealthy but flying low, stealth is not as great as at altitude.. I am puzzled why they continue to use those old jet engines though. They could attach larger, more efficient engines with much higher thrust output and use fewer of them with an increase in payload, range and speed.

 

 

Buff aint dead yet,.....

Sarge, have ya read Dale Brown's "Flight of the Old Dog?"

 

Published twenty-five years ago, fiction of course, but a good yarn about a "modernized" B-52.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no room for second best, Air Superiority has always been paramount for a strategic and tactical advantage ( at least since WW II). Some one above mentioned that you don't get into a fight on your opponents advantages, right on. Tactics with the Zero were to dive in on an attack and zoom away. Similar tactics with the F-4 in SEA vs. the MiG 15/17. The Phantom could not turn with the MiGs but could use the vertical to their advantage.

 

The new generation of fighters are not designed to attack mud huts, the F-22 and F-35 are developed for air superiority for the 21st century. Amazing but the f-15 Strike Eagle still has an advantage over anything else in the air right now and should still hold at last an 8 to 1 kill ratio.

 

The F-22 would place that kill ratio to 22 to 1 at present, however as mentioned the russians and chinese are actively working on a new generation of fighter and it's crucial to stay ahead of them. The stealth technology on the F-22 is based on sending a flight of air craft into a battle situation and taking out the threat before anyone knows they are on station.

 

:FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dusty, Point still exists. A 22 to 1 air kill ratio doesn;t mean anything in getting a high valued mud hut destroyed.

If F22 and F35 wont do for mud huts what will do. Or do we need yet another high priced aircraft.

 

Chantry, Guided weapons still need detailed target info, a spotter near with some form of designator or the exact location.

And the weapon changes still need to be able to support spontaneous generalized ground support that are not like missions planned for weeks to hit a fixed location mud hut. Think about rescuing a downed aviator or supporting a special ops team. The exact location and targets of enemy are unknown until they are encountered. Can the advancing technology and toys handle that one too? Can you provide anti personnel fire?

 

 

The P47, P40s and P51s real contribution in the pacific pales in comparison to contribution of the Navy and Marine Corps F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair, SBD Dauntlass and TBF/TBM Avenger. These were the planes that took the war to the IJN. The Dauntlass alone is credited with more ship kills than most other aircraft combined. And the F6F Hellcat has way more airkills than the P-51 in the Pacific. (overall total show both total over 5000 with P51 in the lead on one chart, with the Hellcat leading on others). Even the F4F/FM2 Wildcat had more airkills in the Pacific area than the P47. The P-38 did a real good job in the long range mission to kill Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. Did you know that according to legend Charles Lindburgh had an air kill in a P-38? He was working with Lockheed engineers to help the Army Air Corp get better range out of their P-38s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dusty, Point still exists. A 22 to 1 air kill ratio doesn;t mean anything in getting a high valued mud hut destroyed.

 

 

Chantry, Guided weapons still need detailed target info, a spotter near with some form of designator or the exact location.

And the weapon changes still need to be able to support spontaneous generalized ground support that are not like missions planned for weeks to hit a fixed location mud hut. Think about rescuing a downed aviator or supporting a special ops team. The exact location and targets of enemy are unknown until they are encountered. Can the advancing technology and toys handle that one too? Can you provide anti personnel fire?

 

 

The P47, P40s and P51s real contribution in the pacific pales in comparison to contribution of the Navy and Marine Corps F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair, SBD Dauntlass and TBF/TBM Avenger. These were the planes that took the war to the IJN. The Dauntlass alone is credited with more ship kills than most other aircraft combined. And the F6F Hellcat has way more airkills than the P-51 in the Pacific. (overall total show both total over 5000 with P51 in the lead on one chart, with the Hellcat leading on others). Even the F4F/FM2 Wildcat had more airkills in the Pacific area than the P47. The P-38 did a real good job in the long range mission to kill Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. Did you know that according to legend Charles Lindburgh had an air kill in a P-38? He was working with Lockheed engineers to help the Army Air Corp get better range out of their P-38s.

 

 

 

Again, the F-22, etc. are not designed to strike mud huts, that's what Drones will be tasked with. The above mentioned fighters are designed for high altitude air to air combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Lindberg did actually do some combat ops, although he wasn't supposed to. He also taught the P-38 groups how to get the most range out of their aircraft, and, may have been indirectly responsible for the demise of Yamamoto :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall reading a year or two back in an aviation magazine that the Air Force was planning on lowering F-15 and F-16 inventories, lowering procurement of the F-22 and F-35, but that all A-10s in inventory were slated for refurbishing and avionics upgrades. I will have to see if I can find the article.

 

Edit: I found an article from a recent Air Force Times indicating the Air Force wants to ground some A-10s as part of budget cuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.