F-ZeroOne Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 Spitfire? Nice. Oh dear me, yes. Heres one of my favourite Spit pictures, though I'm not in front of it, unless you count the "holding the camera" clause!
Nied Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 I have numerous pictures of me standing in front of a wide variety of military aircraft. The problem is it's difficult to see me because I'm the one taking the picture. This one of my dad in front of one of the types of planes he flew in the Navy (in this case a T-2 Buckeye) will have to serve as a stand in. Just imagine this guy 30 years younger and with more hair and you've got me anyway. And my 1,000th post (on this incarnation of MW) comes in the Aircraft vs Super Thread. How fitting.
vermillion01 Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 For no particular reason i thought i'd share a couple of pics i took at our local airshow about 4 years ago.. i like them but they were taken on a pretty awfull camera...
Ratchet Posted October 26, 2007 Posted October 26, 2007 (edited) Check out my personal videos: Blackhawks and medics/nurses (hooooah!) at my combat support hospital Here's pair of AH-64s buzzing my unit's CHS. Really short video of a medivac UH-1 Huey getting loaded Apaches and Longbows A longbow and an Apache Landing Chinooks Going By Blackhawks The first Army Aviation Modernization Plan (AAMP) was implemented in 1988. As modified in subsequent revisions, this plan called for a gradual reduction in the number of Army aircraft as older models were replaced by modern ones. According to the 1992 version of the AAMP, the aircraft inventory of 7,793 aircraft in 1992 would be reduced to 6,150 in 1999 and 5,900 in 2010, with only six types of aircraft in the rotary-wing fleet. The Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI) was undertaken to correct the deficiencies in the Army of Excellence (AOE) design for aviation units while retiring old aircraft and reducing the logistics requirements and costs. Implementation of the ARI began in 1994 with all forward-deployed forces scheduled to complete the restructuring process by 1998 and all other units by 1999. Edited October 26, 2007 by Ratchet
Apollo Leader Posted October 27, 2007 Author Posted October 27, 2007 Better late then never! A year ago September I attended the Guardians of Freedom air show which was hosted by the Nebraska Air National Guard. I posted a few pictures here on Macross World from that show and I intended to post a lot more, but since I had like 1,100+ pictures to go through I simply never had time to do it. Since Facebook automatically scales down these pictures to a much smaller and usable size, this has now made it possible for me to now present over a quarter of the pictures I took that late September. Let me know what you guys think! Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 David should be happy to know I shot a few pictures of a pessenger jet or two landing at an adjacent runway.
David Hingtgen Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 ...I only found pics of one. (a CRJ) Anyways-- Official Grumman Iranian Tomcat promos!
the white drew carey Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 ...I only found pics of one. (a CRJ) Anyways-- Official Grumman Iranian Tomcat promos! Awesome! I know there's probably easier ways to find this, but once the 2nd video said the base was outside of Esfahan, I did some Google Earthin' and, sure enough, you can see an F-14 on the ground at the airbase east of the city.
HoveringCheesecake Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 Is it bad form to ask for a fit screen resolution picture from airliners.net? I probably shouldn't even ask, but I had to once I saw this: http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0925...next_id=0995911
F-ZeroOne Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 Top Gear did the Veyron vs Typhoon race this evening. I won't spoil who won. I will say, though, that the Tiffy climbs like a homesick angel. One with a rocket up its... They also featured a new Lamborghini, which apparently was inspired by the F-22. Hope that doesn't mean its going to have corrosion problems as well...
Lynx7725 Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 Top Gear did the Veyron vs Typhoon race this evening. I won't spoil who won. I will say, though, that the Tiffy climbs like a homesick angel. One with a rocket up its... Heh, Top Gear is turning into a show obsessed with the Veyron. It's a great car, but still...
Apollo Leader Posted October 29, 2007 Author Posted October 29, 2007 ...I only found pics of one. (a CRJ) Anyways-- Official Grumman Iranian Tomcat promos! Well at least I got the one! It was a great show and i really got to put my Digital Rebel to good use that day. As for the Grumman Iranian Tomcats video, the guy who I worked for during most of the 1995-2002 period lived in Iran for a year or two around 1976 or so when he was a teenager and his dad was a helicopter instructor for Bell Helicoipter. He showed me a number of times his school yearbook from when he was there. His father was responsible for training some of the Bell instructors who in turn would be eventually instructing some of the Iranian pilots.
Ratchet Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...2-fighters.html
Nied Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...2-fighters.html Good. Cutting the number of Raptors was one of a long string of things Rumsfeld did to weaken the US military, I'm happy to see the Air Force working to get this turned around. You know something is wrong when you hire people to do a study to try and discredit a program and they come back and tell you the exact oposite of what you wanted to hear.
F-ZeroOne Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 Heh, Top Gear is turning into a show obsessed with the Veyron. It's a great car, but still... If it helps, they did do a little model demonstration to show how the race was set-up. They used a Concorde toy and... er... a SMART car for that.
kalvasflam Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 Good. Cutting the number of Raptors was one of a long string of things Rumsfeld did to weaken the US military, I'm happy to see the Air Force working to get this turned around. You know something is wrong when you hire people to do a study to try and discredit a program and they come back and tell you the exact oposite of what you wanted to hear. I would say that number should realistically be in the 500 range, with continued emphasis on upgrading existing units, and adding a two seater variant. Closing down the production line would be a huge mistake.
Apollo Leader Posted October 29, 2007 Author Posted October 29, 2007 I say go back to the original planned 750 Raptors.
Nied Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 I would say that number should realistically be in the 500 range, with continued emphasis on upgrading existing units, and adding a two seater variant. Closing down the production line would be a huge mistake. I'd say go for the 381 that the Air Force wants for the A model and then start work on a two seat B model with a missionized rear cockpit for UCAV controll and more emphasis on the A-2-G mission (add an EOTS sensor from the F-35, and the bulged weapons bay doors from the FB-22 proposal). A couple hundred of those as a F-15E replacement would be nice.
kalvasflam Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 I'd say go for the 381 that the Air Force wants for the A model and then start work on a two seat B model with a missionized rear cockpit for UCAV controll and more emphasis on the A-2-G mission (add an EOTS sensor from the F-35, and the bulged weapons bay doors from the FB-22 proposal). A couple hundred of those as a F-15E replacement would be nice. I like that idea, a missionized UCAV control system... but it would be best if the B model would be more of a AWACS fighter than a true air superiority fighter... imagine one off those puppies controlling half a squad of Reapers for group strikes. On the other hand, I'm not too crazy about the Air to Ground role for F-22, the advantage is the leverage on the common platform, but the -22 would have to be like the FB design. My rationale for the number though isn't just for the sake of manufacturing efficiency, numbers carry a weight all on their own. The US may have air dominance now, but that will definitely not be the case at the present rate of development in another two decades. I do wish they managed to install more payload than two lousy LGBs on the Reapers though. But you gotta start somewhere. I think the sad part is that the procurement for the US military must be made up of a bunch of idiots. They don't bother to scale the manufacturing correctly at all, I think I said this in the previous aircraft thread, they should've made something like 100+ B-2s, not just 21. That would've scaled down the cost dramatically, I am not sure, but I'm guessing all the tooling for the B-2 are long wrecked, and there is no way to ever restart up that line. Sad....
Nied Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 I like that idea, a missionized UCAV control system... but it would be best if the B model would be more of a AWACS fighter than a true air superiority fighter... imagine one off those puppies controlling half a squad of Reapers for group strikes. They're already using the single seat Raptor as a quasi AWACS in exercises already. It was actually used as part of the justification for canceling the E-10. It's biggest disadvantages currently are: 1) the lack of Link 16 uplink capability (the Raptor only has a Link 16 receive terminal), and 2) The pilot has his hands full both directing other aircraft and flying his/her own plane. The second seat in my fantasy Raptor takes part of the second issue, and a stealthy Link 16 uplink terminal is slated for one of the later development spirals. Adding in the planned cheek AESA antennas (also currently in the spiral pipe) would also improve the Raptor's capability as a AWACs. On the other hand, I'm not too crazy about the Air to Ground role for F-22, the advantage is the leverage on the common platform, but the -22 would have to be like the FB design. My rationale for the number though isn't just for the sake of manufacturing efficiency, numbers carry a weight all on their own. The US may have air dominance now, but that will definitely not be the case at the present rate of development in another two decades. The Raptor has a lot of unrealized potential as a deep penetrating strike fighter, and while the FB-22 definitely helps realize that potential it also eliminates most of it's air to air capabilities. While these Raptors would primarily be doing deep strike "kick down the door" type missions, the changes are minimal enough that they could easily swing into an air superiority mission should the first 381 Raptors prove insufficient (as you said quantity has a quality all it's own). I do wish they managed to install more payload than two lousy LGBs on the Reapers though. But you gotta start somewhere. In my scenario the F-22Bs would be controlling X-45/X-47 style UCAVs acting as wingmen for a single Raptor, instead of of numerous relatively unstealthy UCAVs like the Reaper/Predator. I think the sad part is that the procurement for the US military must be made up of a bunch of idiots. They don't bother to scale the manufacturing correctly at all, I think I said this in the previous aircraft thread, they should've made something like 100+ B-2s, not just 21. That would've scaled down the cost dramatically, I am not sure, but I'm guessing all the tooling for the B-2 are long wrecked, and there is no way to ever restart up that line. Sad.... To be fair it's not the US military that's being bone headed, it's congress. The B-2 was meant to be purchased in much higher numbers than it actually was (although in the defense of congress the B-2 was meant solely for a penetrating nuclear strike mission that had all but vanished after the end of the cold war, and it wasn't until much later that it was adapted to the conventional bombing role), and as Appollo Leader pointed out we originally intended to buy 750 Raptors as one-for-one replacements of the F-15 fleet. I think the problem has been the military's failure to educate congress, and more importantly the public who votes for it, on the fact that cutting the number of units purchased of a certain item does little to drive down the costs of that program.
vermillion01 Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In my scenario the F-22Bs would be controlling a X-45/X-47 style UCAVs acting as wingmen for a single Raptor, instead of of numerous relatively unstealthy UCAVs like the Reaper/Predator. To be fair it's not the US military that's being bone headed, it's congress. The B-2 was meant to be purchased in much higher numbers than it actually was (although in the defense of congress the B-2 was meant solely for a penetrating nuclear strike mission that had all but vanished after the end of the cold war, and it wasn't until much later that it was adapted to the conventional bombing role), and as Appollo Leader pointed out we originally intended to buy 750 Raptors as one-for-one replacements of the F-15 fleet. I think the problem has been the military's failure to educate congress, and more importantly the public who votes for it, on the fact that cutting the number of units purchased of a certain item does little to drive down the costs of that program. Nothing to do with the fact that the raptor is ridiculously expensive in any number.. next gen fighters shouldnt be needed in such vast numbers.. i think smaller multi role strike units (think 'stealth' movie) are the way forward. even our Typhoon is hugely expensive (not to mention years late), and i cant see conflicts of the future warranting such large air wings. I love your idea of one or two raptors controlling a small wing of X-45/X-47 style UCAVs. That is the way forward. just my 2cents.
Apollo Leader Posted October 30, 2007 Author Posted October 30, 2007 ...the B-2 was meant solely for a penetrating nuclear strike mission that had all but vanished after the end of the cold war, and it wasn't until much later that it was adapted to the conventional bombing role), As someone who's read up a lot about the B-1 and B-2 programs for two decades now, though both aircraft's primary mission upon entering the Air Force was nuclear strike, both aircraft were designed from the get go to have considerably greater capabilities for carrying conventional munitions then the B-52; the B-1 program started during the smack middle of the Vietnam war and of course the Advanced Technology Bomber program started just a few years after the war ended. I think the problem has been the military's failure to educate congress, and more importantly the public who votes for it, on the fact that cutting the number of units purchased of a certain item does little to drive down the costs of that program. Besides that, you also have whatever political motivations that are moving some of these guys. For some of them, the defense budget is always the first thing for them to be put on the chopping block (got to have trillions of $ to pay people to sit home and do nothing!). IMHO, a lot of these guys in Congress, I'll even say both sides of the aisle, need to go out and get real jobs with these manufacturers and see how things really work in the manufacturing and engineering world.
F-ZeroOne Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 I love your idea of one or two raptors controlling a small wing of X-45/X-47 style UCAVs. That is the way forward. just my 2cents. You're posting on a Macross forum and you're in favour of more unmanned fighters?
vermillion01 Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 You're posting on a Macross forum and you're in favour of more unmanned fighters? i'm not in favour of taking manned fighters out altogether.. but i do think that smaller multi role strike units made up of 4 or 5 planes plus a wing of maybe 2 Ucav's each would make more sense. its not just the expense of making manned fighters, its the cost of training too. and to be honest, as a lover of fighter aircraft (i cant beleive i'm saying this), i think we (as a planet) spends waaaaaaaaaaay too much money on military development. Wars are getting less and less frequent so why do we have to spend more and more money on making military power... - OK I'M GONNA STOP RIGHT HERE... THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR A RANT LIKE THIS. anyhoo, back on topic, i just think that modern military aircraft are too expensive no matter which way you cut it or how many you produce. I want to see more oney ploughed into space programs (dont we all). Do i need to remind anyone of how we developed between 1961 and 1969 - ok i'm off on one again.... sorry everyone.
F-ZeroOne Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Its fine, I just want to be next to you when the first Ghost fighter veers off the testing course and strafes the observing fleshy-goo sacks.
vermillion01 Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Its fine, I just want to be next to you when the first Ghost fighter veers off the testing course and strafes the observing fleshy-goo sacks. LOL.. ok u got me there. but you have to admit, its the way things will go eventually. I want to see "stealth" (movie) units with ucav wingmen... the fanboy in me would love that. heheh.. but like you say it wouldnt take much for one to go 'SPLAT' into some meatbags.
kalvasflam Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) To be fair it's not the US military that's being bone headed, it's congress. The B-2 was meant to be purchased in much higher numbers than it actually was (although in the defense of congress the B-2 was meant solely for a penetrating nuclear strike mission that had all but vanished after the end of the cold war, and it wasn't until much later that it was adapted to the conventional bombing role), and as Appollo Leader pointed out we originally intended to buy 750 Raptors as one-for-one replacements of the F-15 fleet. I think the problem has been the military's failure to educate congress, and more importantly the public who votes for it, on the fact that cutting the number of units purchased of a certain item does little to drive down the costs of that program. A point of contention, I wouldn't call procurement part of the military exactly. I know about the original purpose for the B-2. But 21 is a ridiculously low number. And any fool could've seen the evolution into a conventional role and may be not shut down the B-2. Case in point, the B-52. Still the most useful bomb truck thus far. As for the F-15 fleet, originally, the run was for 729 F-15s, but that ran went well over a thousand for just the USAF. As for the Congress, part of me wonders why they even get to make decisions on military appropriations. You have a bunch of drunks and prima donnas in that place, and they're making multi-billion dollar decisions. And where do they come down on? Entitlement for a bunch of bums sitting home doing nothing. But I think we can all agree that better to have more Raptors than less, just because the economics probably favors it anyway. The argument of why next gen fighters shouldn't be needed in such large numbers is rather silly. Think WWII, German Jet fighters (next gen) vs prop driven fighters (current gen)... who won that war. Hey, the Germans had a qualitative edge there that was unmatched. Next gen didn't fare very well there, did it? Edited October 30, 2007 by kalvasflam
eugimon Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 A point of contention, I wouldn't call procurement part of the military exactly. I know about the original purpose for the B-2. But 21 is a ridiculously low number. And any fool could've seen the evolution into a conventional role and may be not shut down the B-2. Case in point, the B-52. Still the most useful bomb truck thus far. As for the F-15 fleet, originally, the run was for 729 F-15s, but that ran went well over a thousand for just the USAF. As for the Congress, part of me wonders why they even get to make decisions on military appropriations. You have a bunch of drunks and prima donnas in that place, and they're making multi-billion dollar decisions. And where do they come down on? Entitlement for a bunch of bums sitting home doing nothing. But I think we can all agree that better to have more Raptors than less, just because the economics probably favors it anyway. The argument of why next gen fighters shouldn't be needed in such large numbers is rather silly. Think WWII, German Jet fighters (next gen) vs prop driven fighters (current gen)... who won that war. Hey, the Germans had a qualitative edge there that was unmatched. Next gen didn't fare very well there, did it? there were other significant issues at play in WWII other than the generations of the fighters in the war. Hitler's dubious repeated attacks on London, Nazi germany's dwindelling strategic resources and the collapse of their ground forces had just as much to do with the collapse of their air power as anything else. Also, by the end of the war, allied forces were finally fielding aircraft on par with german fighters and germany's truly next gen fighter didn't really have a chance to properly enter the fight in significant numbers.
David Hingtgen Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 I've seen it said that if Hitler hadn't have forced the bomber version of the Me-262, and it had thus not been delayed--it alone could have won the war in Europe. It was that much better---just too few. That's the problem the F-22 may face---being so few that quality won't help. 20 F-22's won't make any difference anywhere. But 200 sure will. With Flankers becoming as common as the F-16, frankly a large number of superior planes are needed. Or a TON of equivalent planes. We don't really have anything between the F-15 and F-22, which is where the Flanker is. We're not going to build a bunch of new F-15C's...
Phyrox Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 I've seen it said that if Hitler hadn't have forced the bomber version of the Me-262, and it had thus not been delayed--it alone could have won the war in Europe. It was that much better---just too few. I'd read that in a few places as well, but it just doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. Germany had way too many factors running against it even by that time to have been able to turn it around with a great fighter jet. It maybe...maybe could have shut down U.S. daylight bombing. That isn't gonna win Germany the war. It isn't gonna stop the russian army advance...you couldn't produce enough to counter the soviet edge in numbers, and no local air superiority is going to stave off defeat on that kind of scale. It is a Romantic idea though...interesting to ponder I suppose.
Nied Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 As someone who's read up a lot about the B-1 and B-2 programs for two decades now, though both aircraft's primary mission upon entering the Air Force was nuclear strike, both aircraft were designed from the get go to have considerably greater capabilities for carrying conventional munitions then the B-52; the B-1 program started during the smack middle of the Vietnam war and of course the Advanced Technology Bomber program started just a few years after the war ended. You probably know better than I, but it was my understanding that the Air Force resisted the effort to adapt both the B-1 and the B-2 to the conventional role, and thus inadvertently made them more attractive targets for cuts. Neither got adapted for that mission until the end of the '90s. It's basically the same thing that killed the F-14: For years the Tomcat community resisted efforts to hang bombs on their beautiful fighters, and when the cold war ended they found themselves with very little justification for keeping their aircraft (especially when it was revealed that the "Backfire swarm of DOOOOOM!!!" threat was actually overblown in the first place). Besides that, you also have whatever political motivations that are moving some of these guys. For some of them, the defense budget is always the first thing for them to be put on the chopping block (got to have trillions of $ to pay people to sit home and do nothing!). IMHO, a lot of these guys in Congress, I'll even say both sides of the aisle, need to go out and get real jobs with these manufacturers and see how things really work in the manufacturing and engineering world. Given that defense is far and away the largest chunk of discretionary spending every year that's understandable. It's more productive to cut a few fighters from a $19 billion fighter program than it is to shave off a some money from an $5 billion social program whether you want to pay for expanding that social program or make sure the top 1% of earners are in the lowest tax bracket. The problem is that like I said, cutting production numbers by 20% doesn't actually result in savings of 20%, and the DoD needs to get better at explaining that.
Nied Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 A point of contention, I wouldn't call procurement part of the military exactly. I know about the original purpose for the B-2. But 21 is a ridiculously low number. And any fool could've seen the evolution into a conventional role and may be not shut down the B-2. Case in point, the B-52. Still the most useful bomb truck thus far. The problem is that, like I mentioned above, the AF actively resisted converting the B-1 and B-2 for the conventional role. If all they were going to do was nuclear penetration, a token force of 21 bombers was more than adequate once the cold war ended (and I would argue it still is). Converting the B-2 to the conventional role changes that equation but at the time the Air Force generals kept going up to congress to tell them how that was a really bad idea, despite the fact that the opposite was true. Why? Because well they were SAC and SAC doesn't do that piddling tactical stuff (and Tomcats pilots don't hang bombs on their pretty fighters). As for the F-15 fleet, originally, the run was for 729 F-15s, but that ran went well over a thousand for just the USAF. Most of which are sitting in the boneyard. According to the Air Force Fact file there are currently 522 active F-15A/B/C/Ds and 217 F-15Es. As for the Congress, part of me wonders why they even get to make decisions on military appropriations. You have a bunch of drunks and prima donnas in that place, and they're making multi-billion dollar decisions. And where do they come down on? Entitlement for a bunch of bums sitting home doing nothing. Because unless we're going to start electing DoD employees they'd be spending the taxpayers' money without any say from the taxpayers themselves. I'm pretty sure we fought a war somewhere in our past to avoid that. But I think we can all agree that better to have more Raptors than less, just because the economics probably favors it anyway. The argument of why next gen fighters shouldn't be needed in such large numbers is rather silly. Think WWII, German Jet fighters (next gen) vs prop driven fighters (current gen)... who won that war. Hey, the Germans had a qualitative edge there that was unmatched. Next gen didn't fare very well there, did it? My favored mix would be 500-600 F-22A/Bs to replace the F-15C and F-117 fleet, 900 F-35Cs to replace the F-16 and F-15E fleet, with 1000 or so legacy designs (Golden Eagle A-10C, Block 60+ F-16s) backing them up. Oh and a boatload of UCAVs.
David Hingtgen Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 You know, with the zillion F-4/14/15/16's in the boneyard--couldn't we win just about any aerial situation through sheer numbers of reactivated planes? It seems the F-22 etc are always needed for some "ultimate showdown with a large, advanced enemy"---but frankly nobody has the sheer numbers we have available. I'd gladly send a thousand old F-4's against the largest Flanker fleet in the world, and expect to win.
Warmaker Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) As for the late introduction of the Me262, there's another larger factor I'd add in: With the onset of the war, Germany, though starting it, did not fully gear for war. The industry wasn't geared for it. Some weapon systems that were close to being ready for introduction or even systems that needed upgrading were pushed back since the conflict would be short. Germany went into war with a definitely technologically inferior Panzerwaffe, though it was the doctrines which made them what they were. The Fw190 as I recall would have been introduced earlier but the focus was on the current fleet of Bf109's. I'm not sure how much earlier the Me262 would have entered if it had more resources poured into it. But an earlier, effective introduction could have made a dent with the Luftwaffe at least still being in strength since by mid'44 it was a shadow of itself. The draw for the 262 would have been Bomber interception. It wasn't made for dogfighting, but it's abilities would have helped tremendously against the numerically strong (and well crewed) Allied fighters... simply by avoiding them. Historically, even the Americans' Daylight Bombing Campaigns have resulted in occasionally horrendous losses. That's with Flak and normal piston engined aircraft. Imagine if there were some units of 262s intercepting while the Luftwaffe still had strength earlier in the war... like 1943? All the Luftwaffe fighter / interceptor force would have to do is inflict massive enough casualties to the bomber force to bring a long enough respite. Like I said, even the large USAAC suffered large losses on single occasions where it questioned the validity of Daytime Bombing. And the Luftwaffe wasn't shabby with nightfighting either (though historically daytime fighting was the core effort). Still, I don't think an earlier introduction of the Me262 would have given Germany a victory in WWII. But it would have made it much costlier to the Allied bomber force. Roughly 10 men go down in each of those 4-engined bombers. Eventually, though, the Allies would introduce their jets to try and even things out. I envision an early, proper introduction of the Me262 giving Germany a bit of respite, but it won't change the course of the war. Germany by mid-43, IMO, had more than an even chance to lose the war... say 60-70%?... by 1944 it was a guaranteed defeat, one way or another. ----------- As for digging out mothballed F4 Phantoms for combat against modern MiGs and Sukhois, I don't know about that Firstly, they will need upgrading for even at least somewhat modern equipment (avoinics, etc). Then they need to be tested, fixed, tested, etc. Then you also need to train up a large number of pilots to even have basic training / flight experience on the platform. How many Phantom pilots are left flying in the USAF, USN, and USMC, fit enough to train the new generation of pilots?... if these older, experienced Phantom drivers aren't retired yet at the onset of a large conflict. Optimally, you'd have a very, very small core of experienced F4 pilots while the rest are highly inexperienced. You're not going to have a sizeable core of Captains & Majors (Lieutenants, Lt Cmdrs for USN) who have good experience, a sort of "in-between" the older pilots and the brand new ones. The big thing will be training. How much time will be dedicated to training these 1k pilots for an upcoming conflict against a supposed enemy air force that's large enough and respectable enough to warrant the US to bring F4's out of mothballs? - Would it be acceptable to the US to throw out pilots in old aircraft and overal very basic training against a modern air force? - Would it be acceptable to the US to throw out pilots in modern aircraft with extensive training against a modern air force? I have always thought that Western / NATO Air Forces had the edge in quality. Quality being gained by good aircraft (which is narrowing to varying degrees now) and most of all, training and experience. Throwing tons of inexperienced pilots in old aircraft, IMO throws these advantages away. Edited October 31, 2007 by Warmaker
Recommended Posts