Why not have bought a lot more of them and a lot of F-16s, A-10s and F-18s for ground pounding?
Why not have bought a lot more of them and a lot of F-16s, A-10s and F-18s for ground pounding?
I too have asked that question a number of times. The problem as I see it is that all of the services try to make their equipment multi-role do everything items. What they end up with nearly everytime is a something that doesn’t do any of them in an outstanding manner.
The Air Force does it with their Aircraft all of the time. The Navy does it with their ships.
Why? Well I certainly don’t know why but I suspect it is a matter of dollars available for a project and once a project does make it through the approval process everyone piles on and adds their own “special” requirements and you end up with an Elephant which all who are familiar with the process know was originally designed as a mouse.
That's what I was thinking. More F-22s for escort and air superiority. Then you can bring in new-build F-18s and F-16s to put ordnance on target.
Yes, I get that a multi-role can, by definition, do it all. That they don't need a huge strike package etc. However, as others have pointed out they will never be the absolute best at any one mission. There is always some form of compromise. Why not send in the absolute best air-to-air system? Don't just control the airspace over the target, dominate it. Why send in something that has merely ok payload and range? Why not send in something carrying enough ordnance to get the job done in one trip, no questions asked.
I don't know right offhand, but I was blasted a few years ago for saying the F-35 would end up costing as much as an F-22.