Posted on 09/21/2006 9:28:10 PM PDT by nametrader
Because it was a republic design.nuff said
That and too expensive for ground attack.we used liquid cooled mustangs in korea instead of thunderbolts which were aircooled.And yes we had plenty of guard units with t-bolts.lost alot of mustangs in the ground attack role during korea.
Thanks for the link. I had read about that before and it seems like International Defense Weekly or one of the other trade magazines had an article on remotely piloted vehicles in the future and the possibility that an airframe similiar to the ARES would be the wave of the future for close air support.
It might even (gasp) be possible for the Army to fly the thing instead of USAF. Not that I do not love my Air Force brethren....
I think the ultimate replacement for the A-10 will be more like the Predator than the F-35. I want to keep the A-10 until that day comes (probably sooner than we all think).
It makes sense to have the F-35 but it does not make sense to risk an F-35 for a target that is worth 1/10000 value of the F-35. I posted this on a previous thread on my first day on this site and being interested in the topic I have read up on it since. We are faced with a long term conflict in this new war and economy will have to be factored in at some point as long as it does not pose undue risks to our personnel.
The ARES does look wicked though! There is just something about the GAU gun that comforts a guy who dug a few fox holes. :)
Do we know who our REAL friends are? I believe there are a couple of allies that are borderline.
Only slightly. The F-22 is the air superiority fighter. The F-35 is a multi-purpose aircraft that will be sold to a number of countries. The F-35 is competitive with anything out there except the F-22 in an air superiority role.
After watching two do figure eights around a c-130 east of Nellis one day, I doubt it! Awesome maneuverability--with firepower to boot. I have a hard time seeing how anything going Mach 1+ is going to be able to put a load of doom on a target like they can--and flip around and do it again!
I never reconciled to the fact that the F-18 (and for that matter the F-16 as well) was designed as a "slow racehorse" (as Winston Churchill described a plan to save money on naval destroyers by building less capable ones). The F-18 replaced the F-14 but without offering similar speed or range/endurance or armament. And, its intention to save money notwithstanding, it has been a sinkhole for money because it went through three full scale developments: first as the F-17 and twice as the F-18 (the E/F model being about 90% incompatible with earlier models; a whole new plane designed to look like its predecessor).
"However, the F-35 cost about $35-$40 million per plane while the F-22 costs somewhere between $130 million and $240 million per plane, depending on options and how many are purchased."
I think the F-35 is going to cost closer to $90 million per plane. I'm really wondering if spending money expensive toys for the airforce is really what is needed. On the F-22 the development costs are already spent, so why not order more of those? I'm not sure the F-35 will be cost effective as a bomb truck.
The Lightning rises from the grave again!!
Personally, I'll be glad when it's operational and the pilots and crews re-name it. Lightning II? Is the best they could come up with?
Yes.
The F-22 will still be used. Like with the F-15 and F-16, the 22 and 35 have different roles, the 22 is big and expensive, we need a cheap, small, quick plane to replace the 16s. Although I disagree with the USAF retiring the Warthog.
"More american engineering greatness shines through."
True, and we need to get some of this greatness into our politicians before the Islammunists take us over. These F-35 type weapons won't be very effective agasinst smuggling suitcase nukes across the Mexican border into Los Angeles, or sucide bombers strapped with explosives. Or even against the propaganda films such as the Hezbollah supplied our newspapers with.
This war we're in requires some new thinking and we don't have long. Our engineers are smart. How do we get smart statesmen and -women?
What 'suitcase nukes'?
Agreed. The Warthog is essential. It's like a big, nasty slobber knocking, mauling guard in football. Sure the QB is a pretty boy, but you need the big uglies to get the job done.
>>>>>"The A-10 is cheap to operate and the guard/reserve guys love it so no reason we cannot have both"<<<<<
That is called "common sense" and it is a rare commodity at the Pentagon.
I once read that three squadrons of these could take on all of the rest of the world's air forces, combined, and splash them all.
The warthog can take an amazing pounding and stay in the air... So could the old WWII bombers.
One of the projects a place I worked for was working on was software to "nutral stick" for fighters... so that even after sustaining heavy damage, the pilot could still fly the craft with stick neutral.... IE: If the damage caused a hard left ya, the software would compensate for it, and the pilot could fly with stick in middle position to stay level, instead of having to keep the stick hard right to compensate for the yaw....
Basically he didn't have to fight to keep the craft level, but fly as he normally would.
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.