User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 3:01:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is what the USAF should invest in. https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/F-16I-out-of-shelter.jpg What started off as a lightweight high tech weapon with a troubled and controversial introduction has evolved into a heavy pig that's been pressed into roles it wasn't intended to fill by strapping a bunch of bullshit onto it and calling it 'evolution'. Whether you see that as a triumph or a failure is up to the individual, I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 3:33:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since wehave not been in a war with a major advisory since North Vietnam the arms race has really slowed. Technically the First Gulf War does not count as most of the equipment we use today was just off the assembly line. Still, flying aircraft for almost 80 years (BUFFs) is amazing. We'll scramble and be caught off guard in the next major war. By who? ...the entire rest of the world? Once nuclear weapons came on the scene, everything has been third-world shitholes, and proxy wars. The only powers even close enough to challenge the US are perhaps Russia and China. And neither would risk a major engagement against us, because of the nuclear option. We spend more on our military than almost the entire rest of the world combined. ....and we're over 18 trillion in debt. I fear that our debt and unfunded liabilities are a bigger threat to us, than China or Russia. I want a strong defense. I'd like to see us upgrade and modernize our nuclear deterrent. I'd like us to keep developing our missile defense systems, and I'd like to see us upgrade and expand our submarine capabilities. But I just don't think we need a lot of expensive manned fighters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 3:37:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The similarities between the F-16 and M-16 development are remarkable, sometimes. What started off as a lightweight high tech weapon with a troubled and controversial introduction has evolved into a heavy pig that's been pressed into roles it wasn't intended to fill by strapping a bunch of bullshit onto it and calling it 'evolution'. Whether you see that as a triumph or a failure is up to the individual, I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 3:54:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote Historyhttp://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/748/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 4:01:45 PM EDT
[#5]
Good to hear! Hope we can keep the A-10 as well!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 4:11:21 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 4:11:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you fly it less then it will last longer? The F-16 is an incredibly capable aircraft and it doesn't surprise me the air force wants to extend the service life. But at some point it has to go. The airframe has a structural service life and eventually it will break. If a handful of them fall apart in mid-air and the whole fleet gets grounded while we're in a hot war then what? It was less than a decade ago this happened to the eagle and the viper isn't that much older. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 4:18:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Major wars have always been fought on numerical advantage, better attrition rates, and logistics/supply. Since the DoD has been investing significantly on hi-tech, but low-volume fighters, they have no choice but to extend the life of the fighters they have if they want to be ready to fight a major war.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 4:37:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Major wars have always been fought on numerical advantage, better attrition rates, and logistics/supply. Since the DoD has been investing significantly on hi-tech, but low-volume fighters, they have no choice but to extend the life of the fighters they have if they want to be ready to fight a major war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 4:47:30 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol By who? ...the entire rest of the world? Once nuclear weapons came on the scene, everything has been third-world shitholes, and proxy wars. The only powers even close enough to challenge the US are perhaps Russia and China. And neither would risk a major engagement against us, because of the nuclear option. We spend more on our military than almost the entire rest of the world combined. ....and we're over 18 trillion in debt. I fear that our debt and unfunded liabilities are a bigger threat to us, than China or Russia. I want a strong defense. I'd like to see us upgrade and modernize our nuclear deterrent. I'd like us to keep developing our missile defense systems, and I'd like to see us upgrade and expand our submarine capabilities. But I just don't think we need a lot of expensive manned fighters. We spend less than 4% of our GDP on defense. We can afford it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2017 4:51:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The similarities between the F-16 and M-16 development are remarkable, sometimes. What started off as a lightweight high tech weapon with a troubled and controversial introduction has evolved into a heavy pig that's been pressed into roles it wasn't intended to fill by strapping a bunch of bullshit onto it and calling it 'evolution'. Whether you see that as a triumph or a failure is up to the individual, I guess. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is what the USAF should invest in. https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/F-16I-out-of-shelter.jpg What started off as a lightweight high tech weapon with a troubled and controversial introduction has evolved into a heavy pig that's been pressed into roles it wasn't intended to fill by strapping a bunch of bullshit onto it and calling it 'evolution'. Whether you see that as a triumph or a failure is up to the individual, I guess. People love to cite some current weapon system (that had a very controversial introduction) as having been perfect and popular from day 1 when they are bitching about current defense programs. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 1:40:50 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised the AF taught you how important the B-29 was for airdroppimg naval mines. But I'm not sure why you think the F-35 is so important. What do you plan to do with it and against who, that requires 2,400 of them? As to the F-35, we can build modern aircraft designed to make the generals and political leaders of our most powerful enemies afraid or we can build ancient aircraft and give them hope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 2:00:21 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've got that backwards. It was the Navy (Fleet Admiral Nimitz) who taught the USAAF how the B-29 would be more effective dropping naval mines than bombs. And a Fleet Admiral teaches by issuing an order. Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've got that backwards. It was the Navy (Fleet Admiral Nimitz) who taught the USAAF how the B-29 would be more effective dropping naval mines than bombs. And a Fleet Admiral teaches by issuing an order. As to the F-35, we can build modern aircraft designed to make the generals and political leaders of our most powerful enemies afraid or we can build ancient aircraft and give them hope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 2:08:58 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I said YOU I was talking about USAF77, who I'm pretty sure isn't a WW2 vet. Russia and China do not give a fuck about the F-35. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You've got that backwards. It was the Navy (Fleet Admiral Nimitz) who taught the USAAF how the B-29 would be more effective dropping naval mines than bombs. And a Fleet Admiral teaches by issuing an order. As to the F-35, we can build modern aircraft designed to make the generals and political leaders of our most powerful enemies afraid or we can build ancient aircraft and give them hope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 2:43:55 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol By who? ...the entire rest of the world? Once nuclear weapons came on the scene, everything has been third-world shitholes, and proxy wars. The only powers even close enough to challenge the US are perhaps Russia and China. And neither would risk a major engagement against us, because of the nuclear option. We spend more on our military than almost the entire rest of the world combined. ....and we're over 18 trillion in debt. I fear that our debt and unfunded liabilities are a bigger threat to us, than China or Russia. I want a strong defense. I'd like to see us upgrade and modernize our nuclear deterrent. I'd like us to keep developing our missile defense systems, and I'd like to see us upgrade and expand our submarine capabilities. But I just don't think we need a lot of expensive manned fighters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 3:10:42 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've got that backwards. It was the Navy (Fleet Admiral Nimitz) who taught the USAAF how the B-29 would be more effective dropping naval mines than bombs. And a Fleet Admiral teaches by issuing an order. As to the F-35, we can build modern aircraft designed to make the generals and political leaders of our most powerful enemies afraid or we can build ancient aircraft and give them hope. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised the AF taught you how important the B-29 was for airdroppimg naval mines. But I'm not sure why you think the F-35 is so important. What do you plan to do with it and against who, that requires 2,400 of them? As to the F-35, we can build modern aircraft designed to make the generals and political leaders of our most powerful enemies afraid or we can build ancient aircraft and give them hope. Seriously? Just maybe the AF had that whole High/Low mix right on types of aircraft...maybe.... The AF is going to put itself out of business by making it's services unaffordable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 3:17:43 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I said YOU I was talking about USAF77, who I'm pretty sure isn't a WW2 vet. Russia and China do not give a fuck about the F-35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 3:46:05 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are we seriously planning to use stealth aircraft to bomb mud huts and goat rapists in coming years? How is that affordable or sustainable? In what world are we going to be able to complete any serious long term effort like Iraq/Afghanistan...when flying aircraft that are that fragile and cost that much? Seriously? Just maybe the AF had that whole High/Low mix right on types of aircraft...maybe.... The AF is going to put itself out of business by making it's services unaffordable. There never will be a high low mix because the low is uneconomic. Having to train pilots to fly a piece of shit super tucano like aircraft that can't do shit or carry shit and then having to support a fleet of incapable airplanes is not economic for the United States Air Force. The mission of the USAF is to defend this country and/or attack it's enemies regardless of their capabilities. You can't fight a peer with Super Tucanos. If you want something useful the cheapest you can go would be something along the lines of a modern A-6 Intruder. I don't know if it would be cheaper than an F-16 or cheaper per hour to operate, but I bet it would be cheaper per lb of enemy destroying ordnance delivered. Medium bombers were useful in WWII and the A-6 was useful far after that. We don't have anything like them anymore except the A-10 and it's on it's way out and the gun is heavy, inflexible system that needs to go away on any replacement aircraft. If you are concerned about the cost of air power against mud huts, then you are going to have to develop weapons that reduce the need for air force air power and rely on army power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 7:41:20 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was no High/Low mix. It's a falsehood in your stated context and concerns about mud huts and goat fuckers. Because the Low was a fucking F-16. A supersonic jet fighter. Not cheap. Not cheap to operate. There never will be a high low mix because the low is uneconomic. Having to train pilots to fly a piece of shit super tucano like aircraft that can't do shit or carry shit and then having to support a fleet of incapable airplanes is not economic for the United States Air Force. The mission of the USAF is to defend this country and/or attack it's enemies regardless of their capabilities. You can't fight a peer with Super Tucanos. If you want something useful the cheapest you can go would be something along the lines of a modern A-6 Intruder. I don't know if it would be cheaper than an F-16 or cheaper per hour to operate, but I bet it would be cheaper per lb of enemy destroying ordnance delivered. Medium bombers were useful in WWII and the A-6 was useful far after that. We don't have anything like them anymore except the A-10 and it's on it's way out and the gun is heavy, inflexible system that needs to go away on any replacement aircraft. If you are concerned about the cost of air power against mud huts, then you are going to have to develop weapons that reduce the need for air force air power and rely on army power. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are we seriously planning to use stealth aircraft to bomb mud huts and goat rapists in coming years? How is that affordable or sustainable? In what world are we going to be able to complete any serious long term effort like Iraq/Afghanistan...when flying aircraft that are that fragile and cost that much? Seriously? Just maybe the AF had that whole High/Low mix right on types of aircraft...maybe.... The AF is going to put itself out of business by making it's services unaffordable. There never will be a high low mix because the low is uneconomic. Having to train pilots to fly a piece of shit super tucano like aircraft that can't do shit or carry shit and then having to support a fleet of incapable airplanes is not economic for the United States Air Force. The mission of the USAF is to defend this country and/or attack it's enemies regardless of their capabilities. You can't fight a peer with Super Tucanos. If you want something useful the cheapest you can go would be something along the lines of a modern A-6 Intruder. I don't know if it would be cheaper than an F-16 or cheaper per hour to operate, but I bet it would be cheaper per lb of enemy destroying ordnance delivered. Medium bombers were useful in WWII and the A-6 was useful far after that. We don't have anything like them anymore except the A-10 and it's on it's way out and the gun is heavy, inflexible system that needs to go away on any replacement aircraft. If you are concerned about the cost of air power against mud huts, then you are going to have to develop weapons that reduce the need for air force air power and rely on army power. Fuck the wars we actually fight and the capabilities required to do it... Instead, lets consume the lions share of the budget on platforms that are too expensive to operate and too valuable to risk...so we can prepare for a peer adversary that we could never actually fight as all peer nations have nukes and all roads lead to nukes in those fights. If that's your serious answer, you deserve to lose pilots and missions. Iraq/Astan/Syria and similar are reality. Manned aircraft are not going to downtown Beijing...ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 9:10:56 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good thing no one gives a fuck what you think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 9:11:41 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure they do. They give a fuck about F-35's, B-2's, and Minitemen, Trident, and every other weapon that can be used to kill them personally. They also give a fuck about weapons that we will actually use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 10:02:32 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This attitude is why people laugh at AF culture... Fuck the wars we actually fight and the capabilities required to do it... Instead, lets consume the lions share of the budget on platforms that are too expensive to operate and too valuable to risk...so we can prepare for a peer adversary that we could never actually fight as all peer nations have nukes and all roads lead to nukes in those fights. If that's your serious answer, you deserve to lose pilots and missions. Iraq/Astan/Syria and similar are reality. Manned aircraft are not going to downtown Beijing...ever. So long as national policymakers commit forces to counterinsurgency the USAF owes them, taxpayers and the other services their most honest attempt to complete that mission effectively and without breaking their fleet or the treasury. So far they've been unwilling to do that and dishonest when questioned about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 10:05:37 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Viper is quite the hardy little aircraft. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 11:59:36 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. So long as national policymakers commit forces to counterinsurgency the USAF owes them, taxpayers and the other services their most honest attempt to complete that mission effectively and without breaking their fleet or the treasury. So far they've been unwilling to do that and dishonest when questioned about it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This attitude is why people laugh at AF culture... Fuck the wars we actually fight and the capabilities required to do it... Instead, lets consume the lions share of the budget on platforms that are too expensive to operate and too valuable to risk...so we can prepare for a peer adversary that we could never actually fight as all peer nations have nukes and all roads lead to nukes in those fights. If that's your serious answer, you deserve to lose pilots and missions. Iraq/Astan/Syria and similar are reality. Manned aircraft are not going to downtown Beijing...ever. So long as national policymakers commit forces to counterinsurgency the USAF owes them, taxpayers and the other services their most honest attempt to complete that mission effectively and without breaking their fleet or the treasury. So far they've been unwilling to do that and dishonest when questioned about it. Here's a fresh article that describes how the Navy wants to spend for aircraft - U.S. Navy Wants 130 More Super Hornets Over Next Five Years Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Apr 07, 2017 Lara Seligman The U.S. Navy wants to buy 130 additional Super Hornets over the next five years at a price of $13.6 billion as part of an effort to beef up its strike fighter fleet. ... A key question raised by the white paper is whether any of the 130 additional Super Hornets will be in the new Block III configuration, which Boeing has recently pushed the Navy to consider as a complement to the stealth F-35C. Boeing has said they are anticipating a Block III purchase as early as fiscal 2019, and could begin delivering aircraft in late 2020. The Navy estimates that rapidly replacing the aging F/A-18 C/D Hornets with modern aircraft will save about $290 million, the document says. Meanwhile, the Navy envisions spending $27.1 billion to buy 51 Lockheed Martin F-35Bs and $16.6 billion for 38 F-35Cs through fiscal 2023, the document says. This would mean completing the F-35B buy in fiscal 2026, four years earlier than planned—a change that is expected to save the government about $1.2 billion. Overall, the aircraft acceleration plan would cost the Navy an additional $64.2 billion through fiscal 2023. That money would buy 342 additional aircraft in total, including the 130 Super Hornets, 51 F-35Bs, 38 F-35Cs, three AH-1Zs, three CH-53Ks, 11 CMV-22Bs for carrier-onboard delivery, 20 MV-22Bs, 16 E-2Ds, 18 EA-18Gs, 15 KC-130Js, eight MQ-4Cs, and 28 P-8As. ... Pricing- - 130 Block 3 F-18's is $105 Million per aircraft - 51 F-35B's is $531 Million per aircraft - 38 F-35C's is $437 Million per aircraft => 219 airplanes for $57.3 Billion - 123 additional aircraft for $6.9 Billion at $56 Million average cost, which means some of those airplanes cost nothing! Whether those are the actual cost of the airplanes is not relevant, it's the cost to put airplanes on the ramps and decks that matters. Reporting factual costs to the public also matters, and I would say the author of this article should have either asked more questions, or left out the claims of cost saving without adding comments about where the savings will be taken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:19:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Yep, should have kept making the F22, and never touched the F35...could be so far ahead right now with a fleet of F22s and refreshed F16s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:20:54 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it'll be ready soon... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:31:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, should have kept making the F22, and never touched the F35...could be so far ahead right now with a fleet of F22s and refreshed F16s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:35:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good thing no one gives a fuck what you think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:38:05 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That doesn't mean it's a bad plane. It just means it isn't being used properly. Kind of like using a hammer as a wrench. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:40:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You need to read the book Viper Pilot. The F-16C/J is doing yeoman's work as a Wild Weasel. Basically, the F-16 is today's F-4 Phantom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:45:24 PM EDT
[#31]
USAF is worse than furniture stores when they do "going out of business! sales"
First they're going to scrap it, then they are going to continue it, etc etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:50:27 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:52:40 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-35 deploys to Europe for the first time http://www.usafe.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1153203/f-35-deploys-to-europe-for-the-first-time/ https://media.defense.gov/2017/Apr/15/2001733232/-1/-1/0/170415-F-XJ860-0010.JPG An F-35A Lightning II from the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, lands at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, April 15, 2017. The aircraft arrival marks the first F-35A fighter training deployment to the U.S. European Command area of responsibility or any overseas location as a flying training deployment. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Eric Burks) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:55:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 12:59:06 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 1:00:16 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Viper is quite the hardy little aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 1:01:12 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about those wing cracks that grounded Navy Agressor F16Ns, prematurely ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 1:06:16 PM EDT
[#38]
It still blows my mind that we just dont buy new ones and recap the fleet.
The Army did this with amazing success. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 1:06:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's ironic to me have that we seek to emulate the German military that we defeated. The PZ3 and PZ 4 were the overwhelming majority of their tanks, the pz3 lived on as assault guns later in the war. It was only 44-45 that they started producing panthers in any quantity. Tigers were never produced in any great numbers but that project began in the '30's as well. Their subs were all prewar or early war designs that evolved but were essentially the same hulls and their troops for the most part carried the same bolt actions or subguns that were around since the late '30s. None of this equipment was particularly high tech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 1:13:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was no High/Low mix. It's a falsehood in your stated context and concerns about mud huts and goat fuckers. Because the Low was a fucking F-16. A supersonic jet fighter. Not cheap. Not cheap to operate. There never will be a high low mix because the low is uneconomic. Having to train pilots to fly a piece of shit super tucano like aircraft that can't do shit or carry shit and then having to support a fleet of incapable airplanes is not economic for the United States Air Force. The mission of the USAF is to defend this country and/or attack it's enemies regardless of their capabilities. You can't fight a peer with Super Tucanos. If you want something useful the cheapest you can go would be something along the lines of a modern A-6 Intruder. I don't know if it would be cheaper than an F-16 or cheaper per hour to operate, but I bet it would be cheaper per lb of enemy destroying ordnance delivered. Medium bombers were useful in WWII and the A-6 was useful far after that. We don't have anything like them anymore except the A-10 and it's on it's way out and the gun is heavy, inflexible system that needs to go away on any replacement aircraft. If you are concerned about the cost of air power against mud huts, then you are going to have to develop weapons that reduce the need for air force air power and rely on army power. 
NONE of those threats have existed in most of the GWOT or whatever the hell we're calling it these days. A semi-modern interpretation of the A-1 would have been more than adequate for the roles required. USAF doesn't like it? Cut their budget, give most of the CAS role to the Army, and let warrant officers fly the aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 2:54:19 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These were in use deep into the jet age including extended service in a theater with peer/near-peer hostile aircraft, SAMs, and AAA. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Skyraider_A-1H-J_1969_-_00000033_-_USAF.jpg NONE of those threats have existed in most of the GWOT or whatever the hell we're calling it these days. A semi-modern interpretation of the A-1 would have been more than adequate for the roles required. USAF doesn't like it? Cut their budget, give most of the CAS role to the Army, and let warrant officers fly the aircraft. There seems to be a lot of focus on per aircraft costs. The U.S. military doesn't fight that way. We have to be able to suddenly appear nearly anywhere in the world and be able to fight. So bringing a bunch of different types of aircraft with you costs lots of money. Think of a carrier. If you had room for about 90 aircraft, it makes a lot more sense if all 90 of those aircraft can fight/intercept, attack, and bomb. If you have 30 that can fight/intercept, 30 that can attack, and 30 that can bomb, you have a lot less flexibility in meeting different missions and losses due to combat, accidents, maintenance start really screwing with that. That's just the mechanics of the situation. Then you have the people who fly them. 1 person trained to fly 1 aircraft that can do 3 roles is way simpler and more flexible than having 3 different pilot training programs, three different maintenance training programs, etc. Southwest airlines uses the same concept with an entire fleet o 737's and nothing else. We are on a web site dedicated to AR's which essentially replaced the rifle, the smg, and the carbine for most all purposes. If consolidation makes sense on small arms, then having multi-role aircraft has an even more powerful incentive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 4:58:17 PM EDT
[#42]
Your effort to justify the slow destruction of B-1s at a million dollars a sortie is weak.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 6:53:16 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It still blows my mind that we just dont buy new ones and recap the fleet. The Army did this with amazing success. The way around a big show in Congress is by building new airplanes with the data plates, stick, rudder pedals from the old airplanes, and identical paint schemes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 7:47:55 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I stated that a medium bomber like a modernized A-6 or a new gunless A-10 probably might make sense. Maybe a new turbo prop twin engine A-1 type aircraft might make sense. But none of these things will be cheap. There seems to be a lot of focus on per aircraft costs. The U.S. military doesn't fight that way. We have to be able to suddenly appear nearly anywhere in the world and be able to fight. So bringing a bunch of different types of aircraft with you costs lots of money. Think of a carrier. If you had room for about 90 aircraft, it makes a lot more sense if all 90 of those aircraft can fight/intercept, attack, and bomb. If you have 30 that can fight/intercept, 30 that can attack, and 30 that can bomb, you have a lot less flexibility in meeting different missions and losses due to combat, accidents, maintenance start really screwing with that. That's just the mechanics of the situation. Then you have the people who fly them. 1 person trained to fly 1 aircraft that can do 3 roles is way simpler and more flexible than having 3 different pilot training programs, three different maintenance training programs, etc. Southwest airlines uses the same concept with an entire fleet o 737's and nothing else. We are on a web site dedicated to AR's which essentially replaced the rifle, the smg, and the carbine for most all purposes. If consolidation makes sense on small arms, then having multi-role aircraft has an even more powerful incentive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
These were in use deep into the jet age including extended service in a theater with peer/near-peer hostile aircraft, SAMs, and AAA. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Skyraider_A-1H-J_1969_-_00000033_-_USAF.jpg NONE of those threats have existed in most of the GWOT or whatever the hell we're calling it these days. A semi-modern interpretation of the A-1 would have been more than adequate for the roles required. USAF doesn't like it? Cut their budget, give most of the CAS role to the Army, and let warrant officers fly the aircraft. There seems to be a lot of focus on per aircraft costs. The U.S. military doesn't fight that way. We have to be able to suddenly appear nearly anywhere in the world and be able to fight. So bringing a bunch of different types of aircraft with you costs lots of money. Think of a carrier. If you had room for about 90 aircraft, it makes a lot more sense if all 90 of those aircraft can fight/intercept, attack, and bomb. If you have 30 that can fight/intercept, 30 that can attack, and 30 that can bomb, you have a lot less flexibility in meeting different missions and losses due to combat, accidents, maintenance start really screwing with that. That's just the mechanics of the situation. Then you have the people who fly them. 1 person trained to fly 1 aircraft that can do 3 roles is way simpler and more flexible than having 3 different pilot training programs, three different maintenance training programs, etc. Southwest airlines uses the same concept with an entire fleet o 737's and nothing else. We are on a web site dedicated to AR's which essentially replaced the rifle, the smg, and the carbine for most all purposes. If consolidation makes sense on small arms, then having multi-role aircraft has an even more powerful incentive. It's great that you have super planes. It is self defeating when your super planes are so super that nobody can afford them or afford to use them. Budgets are finite. Reality is that you will spend the vast majority of your time doing things other than going to downtown Bejing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 8:10:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Naaaah. VA, VB, VC....VW. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Will the F-16 be the first aircraft we run out of model designation letters for.... we are up to F-16V ? When the F-4E and G got a major radar system upgrade the APQ-120 became the APQ-120V(#). The upgrade replaced the old analog target intercept computer with a digital version that added many new capabilities and was field reprogrammable. When the Phantoms were retired the radar system was up to the V(9) configuration, due to software upgrades over the base version of the upgraded radar APQ-120V(-). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2017 11:44:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who are you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2017 12:03:47 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A guy who doesn't go around thinking my opinion of issues I'm uninvolved in actually matters. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
