Do we need a new fighter?

Well an easy way around that is to, you know...actually make your own stuff. Instead of being dependent on us to provide it for you. Just sayin.

I dont recall the US forbidding the UK from developing it's own hardware.

 

Oh! God! We are doomed!

 

LOL! "Hate for defense spending".

I am definitely NOT against Defense spending. Quite the opposite. Did you see how I voted in the poll?

 

Q. Do we need a new fighter?
A. No

What the Air Force needs are new tankers, which they will hopefully get assuming Congress doesn't keep cutting defense programs and turn the military into a hollow force.

...and an aside note it's not the fighters that's the problem, it's the fighter pilots, they have gotten consistently uglier over the years since the Air Force started recruiting math nerds to fly them...

If we're going to wage war, at least do it with some style.

Could you imagine going to Baron von Richthofen's home and seeing a collection of Star War's toys?

 

we dont need anything new.

Our biggest threats are underwear bombers and somali pirates.

Iran flys the F-4 still, and China's J-7's through J-11's or whatever are a joke as well.

We might as well put the F-14s and A-1 Skyraiders back into production.

 

I like being ahead of the pack, and world wars can start out of no where. With that said, I don't think we need something newer, we just need to be able to streamline production to get more bang for our buck. Oh, and build a (*)(*)(*)(*) mech already. If Japan beats us to the 1st mech I'll be pissed. And you know (*)(*)(*)(*) well they have something to that regards at least in blue print form.

 

Mechs as in Mech Warriors?

I see no advantage for that. They're nothing but easy targets for low profile tanks.

 

Tanks have to have a path. Mechs don't. I want one.

 

Mech's - you mean flying tanks? Dont think they have found protoculture yet.

 

Mech Warriors. Things of fiction, but that is what fuels reality. Whole host of ways to go with them, size and scope. The key is dexterity. For slow would mean easy pray like the other mentioned. But if highly mobile, and fast, would kick the crap out opponents.

 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce_cosmo_bachelor_071109/

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,220606,00.html

You were saying? Mmhmm.

 

It would kick the crap out opponents until an A-10 Thunderbolt II suddenly popped up over a hill and started firing 4200 rounds per minute, 30mm DU shells into the Mech. Air beats land.

 

Everything beats everything. They are all tools. All the airborne guns fire high rates, but the craft you mention holds 1200 rounds. So in 20 seconds it is empty, trying to hit a target that can move in any direction, 360 degrees. The mech wouldn't be an easy target like vehicles have been known to date. It has legs, like you or I. Another component for options in an already impressive force. An option otherwise not available. Such things are always something that contribute more in the scheme of things than simply improving a tool already the best. If you are working on the yard and only own one shovel, do you go to the store for a newer version of the shovel, or buy a hoe?

 

My sentiments almost exactly. (ha ha) Lets keep the high tech stuff we have, and refortify the older birds. Still we would be the most technology...time for the sack ...its 5am and I get up in an hour~

Rev A

 

I love the Brits. I love the Canadians too. We should be fortunate to have great allies. So **** and appreciate.

Do not knock the Rhino. Awesome aircraft. I agree that we should put older aircraft back into production. The Hog is the most useful aircraft for the current threats and would be relatively cheap. The Mudhen and Viper are perfect to compliment.

 

Well at least they can both come out of the closet now...good for them.

 

I agree, even though when the debate turns to toxic argument I don't sound like as if I love our allies. Yes, I love my friends of UK and Canadian allies. Those guys and our other allies are all we have if the SHTF or if the SHTWWF (if the sh*t hits the world wide fan ha ha). We should become closer with them instead of pulling away*. Additionally if I were a powerful politician I would be working overtime in my attempts to help Mexico to recover and become our ally to the south.

Oh yah' the long live the HOG! It's a weird combination, the infantryman AND armor of the air. I would build ten thousand of them. Can you imagine what a thousand of them could do in a suitable target rich environment? Budda- buzzzz- a- bye- bye to what ever was in there !

Rev A

 

Folks are forgetting, jokes aside, that it's one thing to update aging airframes with avionics and all the new bells & whistles...

it's quite another to contend with the airframe itself...many of which are decades old and their airworthiness is questionable...the cost of bringing these airframes up to speed is somewhat prohibitive...like to keep repairing an old car when the cost of the repairs is worth more than the car itself. Time for the boneyard.

Sometimes a brand new airframe is the less expensive route.

Look at it this way, many tankers in the current USAF inventory go back to the Eisenhower era.

Duct tape, a wing and a prayer only go so far to keep these things safe enough to fly. We may not need the most complex and sophisticated 6th generation fighter aircraft as replacements, but replacements of some variant are still necessary.

 

Well that's another 65 billion down the sink then. And I though the US was the key builder of the F35 which they will use.

 

You should be sitting at a control panel at Nellis.