www.ditl.org

There's something to be said for fewer but more capable designs. But there does come a point of diminishing returns, surely. 180 F-22s is absurd for the US. Hell, even the RAF is getting 230 Typhoons! And yeah, 180 F-22s could likely shoot down the whole RAF, but where do we draw the line? Is the next generation going to consist of 3 superjets? What happens when two of them crash into one another by mistake...

GrahamKennedy wrote:There's something to be said for fewer but more capable designs. But there does come a point of diminishing returns, surely. 180 F-22s is absurd for the US. Hell, even the RAF is getting 230 Typhoons! And yeah, 180 F-22s could likely shoot down the whole RAF, but where do we draw the line? Is the next generation going to consist of 3 superjets? What happens when two of them crash into one another by mistake...

I guess you haven't heard of the suborbital bomber project then...

Anyone who is interested in US Military Procurement should watch a movie called "The Pentagon Wars" with Kelsey Grammer. Its based on the true story of the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

As to modern procurement policy, we can't just say we are fighting the guy with the AK and thats it, once we do that he gets a SAM and then your screwed. Look at the Soviet Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, the Hind was a great weapons, until they got RPGs then they started dropping left right and center. To set up your military to deal with only the immediate visible threats is to be destroyed when the Soviets get back into the game...

KuvahMagh wrote:Anyone who is interested in US Military Procurement should watch a movie called "The Pentagon Wars" with Kelsey Grammer. Its based on the true story of the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

As to modern procurement policy, we can't just say we are fighting the guy with the AK and thats it, once we do that he gets a SAM and then your screwed. Look at the Soviet Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, the Hind was a great weapons, until they got RPGs then they started dropping left right and center. To set up your military to deal with only the immediate visible threats is to be destroyed when the Soviets get back into the game...

Rumor has it that the Afghani's getting stingers didn't really do much in a practical sense. They've got a ceiling and the Soviets just operated above it, good PR though.

BTW: Afghanistan and Iraq are littered with SA-7's and they've only achieved one or two hits. The Allies have just adjusted their tactics accordingly, it was all standard stuff anyways.

Umm... a LOT of Warthog pilots swear by their planes, Graham. Stateside, the A-10 gets VERY positive press.

Kendall - A-4's? NZ's air force was probably two pair of Gloucester Meteors.

But yes, the obsession with "bigger, better, faster, more" has driven common sense right out of the equation. Talk to people about the Harrier, and they'll complain about it being subsonic. It's remarkable abilities and record mean nothing, apparently.

Mikey wrote:Umm... a LOT of Warthog pilots swear by their planes, Graham. Stateside, the A-10 gets VERY positive press.

Unfortunately the AF senior leadership is made up of F-15/F-16 drivers.

Kendall - A-4's? NZ's air force was probably two pair of Gloucester Meteors.

Bet they command a high appearance fee at airshows.

But yes, the obsession with "bigger, better, faster, more" has driven common sense right out of the equation. Talk to people about the Harrier, and they'll complain about it being subsonic. It's remarkable abilities and record mean nothing, apparently.

But, but, how else can you bomb a country half way around the world if you can't go uber-fast?

Mikey wrote:Umm... a LOT of Warthog pilots swear by their planes, Graham. Stateside, the A-10 gets VERY positive press.

PILOTS do, yeah. They absolutely love the beasts, as do I. But the brass despise them. They've been trying to retire the things for like 10 years or more now.

Personally I'd far rather see the RAF make do with 200 Typhoons instead of 230, and use the money saved to buy 60 or so A-10s. But hell, I'm just a civilian, what do I know.

Umm... a LOT of Warthog pilots swear by their planes, Graham. Stateside, the A-10 gets VERY positive press.

I think thats what he was saying but that they wanted to replace them with the F-16. Typically Air Forces don't like the "A" symbol, its a stigma for them, thats part of the reason why they didn't label the F-22 "A" and why they dropped the F/A-22 idea. Same with Transport, most Pilots hate being in Transport, they feel like they are just cab drivers. The real glamor is in going Mach 2 and blowing shit up...

On a side note it is the JSF or F-35 that is intended to replace the A-10 along with numerous other designs not the F-22 which is designed as an Air Superiority Fighter with some thought to Ground Support.

More then the brass apparently.

I don't like the idea of the F-35 as a CAS plane. Especially not the VTOL version. Bit of shrapnel into the lift fan and you're basically screwed.

Yeah I looked it up after you mentioned it, well in 10 years we can get together and reminisce about how both of our countries once had a military...

Ours isn't in much better shape really, the F-18s we operate spend most of their time in maintenance and last I checked are unable to fire the latest types of munitions used by our allies. Our Destroyers, circa 1970s are so useless they might as well just let the hulls rust out, tow them out to open ocean and watch what happens, won't take more than a few weeks for the rust out to finish them off the way they are going. Our Kingston Class Coastal Defence Vessel... uses a WW2 Gun as its only armament... manually loaded and fired. Our Sea Kings... well perhaps I should just give you the link to the song... http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-21-2002-30759.asp

GrahamKennedy wrote:I don't like the idea of the F-35 as a CAS plane. Especially not the VTOL version. Bit of shrapnel into the lift fan and you're basically screwed.

If you like that you should check out the Original Bradley, or well the Original Production Bradley, the very original design made sense but uses Aluminum Armour which burns when it is hit to protect an APC is a retarded idea at best...

GrahamKennedy wrote:There's something to be said for fewer but more capable designs. But there does come a point of diminishing returns, surely. 180 F-22s is absurd for the US. Hell, even the RAF is getting 230 Typhoons! And yeah, 180 F-22s could likely shoot down the whole RAF, but where do we draw the line? Is the next generation going to consist of 3 superjets? What happens when two of them crash into one another by mistake...

Actually yes until our Industry can match our technology. I remember seeing a cool episode on the history channel about the future of jets and their space scramjets they said will likely be 1v1 combat over whole contients with lasers as weapons. Cool stuff.

Small numbers are great until the unexpected happens. Our two new carriers for instance; suppose you have a war and you have a carrier in dock for refit and one on duty. You send it, and it hits a mine just after it gets there. As things stand, that's it; you just lost the entire war.