Posted on 02/26/2021 5:57:41 AM PST by Red Badger
Especially the idea that a low technology A-4 could beat them in ACM.Sure...if they are set up close to start. ;)
Using the existing frame, use lighter material where possible, then build in the new technology. You have a proven airframe for a low cost fighter that can be mass produced. The two biggest problem would be has GD disposed of the manufacturing equipment and the engine. You do not want to use old engines. Everything on an aircraft has high time. Anything currently associated with an F-16 has been through depot level repair more than once. All I am advocating is the use of an outstanding airframe. Capable of 9Gs and proven to be reliable. As for the A-1 as of 2017 the USAF was already testing various existing turbo prop aircraft to fill the A-1 role. Fuel type is not an issue. As far as I know the Navy and Air Force still use JP5 and JP4 which fueled those older aircraft. But again I am not advocating for bringing back the A-4M as it was when it retired. That would be nearly impossible as MacDonald Douglas sold the manufacturing equip as scrap years ago. Just pointing out we do not need to reinvent the wheel to fund the military industrial complex.
A Strike U instructor told me the rules of engagement were designed to force the F-14 pilots to get in close and maneuver against the more nimble A-4. He said truth be told in combat, the F-14 would probably take out an A-4 45 miles out. The A-4 would never even know he had been targeted until it was too late.
Gomer Brown was incompetently tapdancing that the F-35 was not to be used for "low-end" dogfights but only high-end dogfights, such as when the enemy sends out engraved dogfight invitations and Brown will RSVP whether he will send out the F-35 (with the pilot in dress blues) or some U.S.-borrowed British Sopwith Camel (with a tobacco-chewing pilot).
It's even possible that Brown has sent down orders that if an F-35 ever encounters a MIG 21 (or earlier) fighter plane in combat, the F-35 is to turn tail and run away so that an older, less fragile U.S. fighter plane can participate in the "low-end" dogfight.
Ferrari should sue the USAF for defamation in comparing their car to the F-35.
I love the irony of the conservative website followers, supposed experts in journalistic agenda, getting taken by the agenda driven journalists.
The Dems back in charge and the propaganda begins to cut funding for the F35.
The AF made it very clear that the reason they want some cheaper aircraft is that, “...you don’t take a Masserati out every day...you take it out on weekends... .
They don’t want to waste the flight hours o the F35 on doing basic air cap missions, anti insurgency, non peer missions. The F35 is for peer competitors...as in China.
Follow a journalist down the rat hole of helping the Dems to cut the F35, like they killed the F22. Ignorance is bliss.
In my experience companies and the military will always advocate for the most expensive option. For companies, the higher the cost the greater the profit. For the military, the greater the cost the greater the prestige and the promotions. There is no oversight.
It depends on the University. MIT and Carnegie Mellon, for example, are outstanding and both work the the DoD on grants and have for some time. MITs Lincoln Lab, for example, has been basically the Radar a radar tank for the DoD since the 50s.
The Air Force is bringing back the A1 Skyraider?
No. I was making the point that it would be nearly impossible to bring back an old piston plane, Below is an article that shows two of the possible propeller planes the AF would like to buy. As far as I know the AF wants about 500. But the likelihood is remote as they just aren’t sexy enough.
https://www.investors.com/news/air-force-light-attack-plane-f35-vs-f15/
The Harrier can turn inside the A4 AND the F16.
Air Force should just let the army take over close air support. They can keep the standoff support role. Let zoomers be zoomers, let warthogs be warthogs.
+1
Or the p47
F-35 formally known as F-111
The Barrier had a tighter turning radius than the F16, and beat it in NATO air exercises at better than 2:1 kill ratio.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1342535/posts?page=77#77
I hate autocorrect
Barrier should be Harrier.
“Air Force should just let the army take over close air support.”
Who does what role is a huge urination contest. No department is going to give up any role, regardless of how unsuited they may be for that role. It’s about funding and prestige.
I suppose the President could step in and make a command decision. But my guess is that implementation of that decision would be stalled or slow-walked until he was gone.
I suspect that a whole lot of things are wrong or would work better if they were reorganized or rearranged to different organizations. But every item on that list has constituents who profit from the status quo.
The Harrier has reached it’s best if used by date. The A and C were lawn darts no matter how well they turned. I never saw a Harrier Squadron come out and train ACM against us and I left in 89. We did train against Marines but just F-18s. They may have had Harriers practicing close air support with the A-6s, I did not work in that area. I am not sure the AV-8 were much of a air to air combat threat. I believe the Marine Corps through pure hubris and force of will made the Harrier work. But they never met the original goals and an A-6 was a far superior aircraft in close air support. A Harrier cannot carry a full combat load in VSTOL. In a traditional take off, it still cannot carry the same combat load proportionally as an A-4 and nowhere near the A-6. In hindsight, I wonder if the Corps had passed on the Harrier II and kept the active duty A-6 and A-4 squadrons for another five years, they could have gone all in on the F-18 and would have required fewer Squadrons and aircraft. They phased the F-4 out first, then the A-4 and then the A-6s. They could have gone with just the F-18. VSTOL is overrated technology. I was trained on the AV-8As and glad I went over to the A-4M. Harriers would make great kamikaze drones. The were designed to crash.
I just KNEW the F-35 software was written by Microsoft.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.