Some of this is not some much airframe number comparision versus numbers of advanced Air-to-Air weapons. Buy enough AMRAAMs and the number of F22 begins to become mote. Don't buy enough and the overall situation changes.
Its the Weapons Load-out Not the Airframe
Some of this is not some much airframe number comparision versus numbers of advanced Air-to-Air weapons. Buy enough AMRAAMs and the number of F22 begins to become mote. Don't buy enough and the overall situation changes.
Unless the other guy has a Meteor or something similar,
then the number of AMRAAMs one possesses becomes moot...Originally Posted by TAH
Not to mention countermeasures...
Ken, this was funny. I read "Meteor" and was still mentally in Korea War history...for a split second I wondered what Meteors and AMRAAMs have in common.
Vampires...
I left out the Vampires (none in Korea to my knowledge but they were arguably better fighters than the Meteors)...
Ken,
If you're going to bring up the quantity-over-quality argument, then you really shouldn't leave out zombies.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Uh uh. You are not getting me to encraoch on Slap's territory...
If you're going to bring up the quantity-over-quality argument, then you really shouldn't leave out zombies.
However, there were Phantoms involved.
Fuchs:
True on the anecdotal. However, anecdotes as antidotes to anecdotes should doted upon if the anecdoter is in his dotage...
As to the 190s and P-51s, the 190 was, IMO, a great bird and the 20mms gave it an edge. It did better than most contemporaries at lower altitude but I suspect most often, the relative numbers were reversed...
Missiles are an issue...
TAH-
The F-22 can carry 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders. While you could carry more externally, you sacrifice some stealth.
That is one of the big problems with 187 Raptors... not enough jets and missiles.
V/R,
Cliff
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28260781
The fighter plane in question: Textron AirLand Scorpion
It is being pitched as a lost cost alternative to the current fighter jet fleets. In particular, it is being sold as being suited for COIN like operations in OEF/OIF.The Scorpion costs about $20m (£12m) a throw, is built from off-the-shelf components, and went from drawing board to first flight in 23 months.
Thoughts:
With the development of the F15 under the F-X program, the USAF found it impossible to equip every standing squadron with it. This lead to the light weight fighter program with the F16 as the winner. The results was a mix of Hi/Lo or Heavy/Light. Of course, the F16 has evolved into a true multirole combat aircraft. The F35, as the successor, is even further away from the original low.
If we wish to have a Hi(F22)/Med(F35)/Lo mix of combat aircraft, I don't see this filling in the lo. Something like the Golden Eagle from Korea, JF17 from PRC, or a modern variant of the F5/T38 would be far suitable. The first obviously suffer from the "not-made-here", the second is obviously out of question, the third doesn't exist (at least not yet). The obvious fear is that this "new" lo in the mix of three, will again suffer from mission bloat that it will eventually become a new "medium".
For COIN like operations, jets have high speeds to race into position as necessary, but is probably associated with higher operating costs (I'm not an expert in this). Would something like a modernized OV10 Bronco or Argentinian Pucara be a better choice? Apparently, the Pucara was used by government forces in Sri Lanka.
Thoughts?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks