View Single Post
  #16  
Old 01-11-2018, 05:59 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghrocketman
The F-16 is a Mach 2 aircraft when "clean".
That should be a basic MINIMUM for any aircraft costing 25% of this unneeded boondoggle.

The issue is the bean counters didn't learn from the F-111 and the F-4 where you find that a jack of all trades is truly the master of none and is very expensive. The F-111 never made it as a navy plane and they had to find roles for it in the AF. The F-4 started out a big fat dud, but eventually became a good bombing platform and a decent air superiority fighter when they added a cannon, improved missile tech, and they optimized tactics for it's superior vertical performance and top speed.

Considering what the JSF is required to do, it's amazing that it's as fast as it is and is as cheap as it is.

The JSF should have never happened based on the history of multi branch endeavors. Updating the current fleet is ok and the F-16 is still being produced (will begin in NC soon), but if they just have to replace them, it should be three separate specialized airframes for the F-16, F/A-18 and the Harrier (design and build with Hawker to share costs). The A-10 should never be replaced as long as there is need for close air support and tank busting. Just like there's no substitute for cubic inches, there's no substitute for 30mm depleted uranium!!!
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote