[Leisler]

Duh! A fighter doesn't make the best bomber? Who would of thought? The F-16 was thought of and needed by the mid 60’s; it only took Pentagon 15 years to get it built. Not the idea of the aircraft, the aircraft itself or those that fought for it's fault. Anyways, I wouldn't want to be a ground target in an area with roaming F-16's around.

Lastly, Boyd wasn't about any particular weapon, or system, he was about thinking, reacting, speedy decisions made quicker then the enemy. He was about acting faster than the enemies ability to react, thus making the enemies combined arms ineffective as a operating whole, that is, turning an enemy’s army into separate little units that can no longer work in unison.

[Arkie2]

Duh! The F-16 was supposed to be a fighter but was so poor in that role the only thing to do with it was make it a tactical bomber, something the A-7, a much older aircraft was much better at. It's essentially a plane without a mission, an ill conceived throwback to the time of WWII when the concept of a fighter was one man, one cockpit, one engine, duking it out mano a mano with some other fighter pilot. It's an idea that passed with the advent of advanced radar and missile systems. The F-16 was a bad idea when it was conceived and hasn't proved its worth since. The F-15 is superior in the air to air role and the F-15 Strike Eagle is a far more effective bomber.