Aircraft Vs Thread 4

[Ratchet]

Hitler made dozens of dumba$$ moves left and right that cost his Reich big time.

[Warmaker]

Hitler made dozens of dumba$$ moves left and right that cost his Reich big time.

Yet just before Kursk in 1943, Germany still had more than a fair chance at coming out to a "moderate victory" in WWII, despite Hitler's blunders.

1943, IMO, is the last year Germany had a chance of achieving anything close to a victory. Anything that lends towards that is a boon for them, and having some units of jets intercepting the everyday threat of bombers over Germany would help. Especially in 1943!. This was the year Germany was introducing some of the most famous weapon systems that it was eventually famous for. This was the last year Germany's forces were still in very good strength.

It's real easy with hindsight to say that Hitler easily lost the war for them. But even by 1943, the Germans weren't quite easily out of the war just yet, since its armed forces were still quite strong.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Warmaker

[David Hingtgen]

All right, forget the F-4's. We have hundreds of F-16A/B's, and F-15A/B's. Plenty of pilots/training for them. Just upgrade them to use the AMRAAM and they'll certainly be at least "decent".

[kalvasflam]

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.

There are always other factors, but we're talking about pure air superiority, which the ME262 didn't achieve. The assumption is that the future US military leaders aren't going to be as stupid as Hitler was in some cases, but that isn't right, and if they screw it up, they would need a larger number to compensate for their mistake.

Quality isn't always everything and can't be always counted on, mass has it's own special meaning too. And what happens when the Russians fields the F-22 equivalent and flood those onto the market. Besides, most of the cases in WWII argued not for better quality but sheer mass. Think the Japanese vs US Navy for example, the Japanese started off with a qualitatively better fleet in just about most aspects, I don't see the JSDF defending US from Canada today though.

Edited October 31, 2007 by kalvasflam

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

AFAIK, the decision to make it a bomber by Hitler was not a major factor in delaying the 262. The Jumo 004s were just not production ready until mid 44. The bomber and fighter versions used the exact same engine. Even if Hitler did not ask for the bomber version, the fighters would be sitting there waiting for engines.

Schelp might have delayed the program a lot more than Hitler when he cancelled the HeS 30 engine back in 1942. Of course there is no proof that the HeS 30 would not have run into its own set of problems and have gotten delayed until mid 44 as well. And if the HeS 30 was used, we might not have seen the swept wing 262 since it was lighter and there would be no need to move the CG.

No swept wings, but about half the engine weight. Wonder if that would have made a better 262. It wouldn't be as pretty though. Any ideas?

As for impact on the USAAF bomber campaign. I think a VT fuze on the heavy flak guns in 43 might have made as big a difference as several Gruppes of Me262s. Combine VT fuzes with Gruppes of Me262s and it would have been a real tough fight.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Ratchet]

Yet just before Kursk in 1943, Germany still had more than a fair chance at coming out to a "moderate victory" in WWII, despite Hitler's blunders.

1943, IMO, is the last year Germany had a chance of achieving anything close to a victory. Anything that lends towards that is a boon for them, and having some units of jets intercepting the everyday threat of bombers over Germany would help. Especially in 1943!. This was the year Germany was introducing some of the most famous weapon systems that it was eventually famous for. This was the last year Germany's forces were still in very good strength.

It's real easy with hindsight to say that Hitler easily lost the war for them. But even by 1943, the Germans weren't quite easily out of the war just yet, since its armed forces were still quite strong.

Yeah...they win Kursk and things are different today. My grandfather would not have joined the U.S. Army back in the day and I would not be living in the USA.

[F-ZeroOne]

Also, by the end of the war, allied forces were finally fielding aircraft on par with german fighters

I have the ghost of Reginald J. Mitchell and his rather famous Lady companion here and they'd like a word or two with you...

[Ratchet]

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.

F-80 Shooting Star?

[kalvasflam]

Yet just before Kursk in 1943, Germany still had more than a fair chance at coming out to a "moderate victory" in WWII, despite Hitler's blunders.

1943, IMO, is the last year Germany had a chance of achieving anything close to a victory. Anything that lends towards that is a boon for them, and having some units of jets intercepting the everyday threat of bombers over Germany would help. Especially in 1943!. This was the year Germany was introducing some of the most famous weapon systems that it was eventually famous for. This was the last year Germany's forces were still in very good strength.

It's real easy with hindsight to say that Hitler easily lost the war for them. But even by 1943, the Germans weren't quite easily out of the war just yet, since its armed forces were still quite strong.

No matter how you slice it, Germany was going to be the loser in WWII, and the US (but may be not Russia or England) would've been the winner. Why would I say this? Let's say Hitler manages to keep status quo and Kursk didn't come out to be such a disaster, Hitler is still economically constrained. It'll prolong the war on the Eastern front, he can't get at Russia manufacturing base, and the Russians had more manpower. So at best, we have a stalemate on the eastern front. Then Overlord happens, and the Germans are hosed, a two front land war, that's not counting the trump card that the Americans held in the form of the A-bomb.

And it's doubtful if the western allies would've negotiated a settlement.

[Nied]

No matter how you slice it, Germany was going to be the loser in WWII, and the US (but may be not Russia or England) would've been the winner. Why would I say this? Let's say Hitler manages to keep status quo and Kursk didn't come out to be such a disaster, Hitler is still economically constrained. It'll prolong the war on the Eastern front, he can't get at Russia manufacturing base, and the Russians had more manpower. So at best, we have a stalemate on the eastern front. Then Overlord happens, and the Germans are hosed, a two front land war, that's not counting the trump card that the Americans held in the form of the A-bomb.

And it's doubtful if the western allies would've negotiated a settlement.

Damn beat me to it.

Even without the A-bomb Germany (hell the entire Axis) was pretty much screwed as soon as it declared war on both the US and USSR. Thier combined (or even individual) economic superiority meant that as soon as war was declared they could easily grind Germany into the dust through sheer numbers no matter how many wunder-weapons they built.

[Ratchet]

Speaking of Nazis and Kursk...here's some books I recommend you read:

Other books I'm reading:

[Fit For Natalie]

Australia is currently in woe. We've recently spent about six billion dollars on 24 yet-to-be-delivered Super Hornets as an interim fighter to plug any gaps that might occur between the retirement of our F-111s and the (distant) delivery of the F-35s.

Four Corners, a current affairs type programme on the government-owned network, aired an episode on monday detailing Australia's conundrum as politics interferes with our usually 'intelligent purchases', making us spend alot of money on fighters that nobody else wants to replace fighters it can't hope to match for our long-range requirements, or match the fighters that are being fielded by our neighbours. We have no carriers, either.

Of interest are tactical simulations showing a formerly secret plan from 1999 to attack Indonesia with a handful of F-111s. The same analysts later run the modified simulation using the Super Hornets versus Indonesia's Su-30s, showing the limitations of the Super Hornet for our requirements.

Video links on the right side (hopefully they work for foriegn visitors):

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm

Opinions?

[kalvasflam]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...7-problems.html

hmmm, no wonder 787 is getting delayed.... reads like big design issues to me sometime ago. If it's getting aired now, they might be past it. If not, things are gonna be going downhill fast for the 787.

Additional interesting tidbit, this one on A380:

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1193904154.html

Guess there won't be any more lovefests on the SIA A380

Edited November 1, 2007 by kalvasflam

[Apollo Leader]

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).

The B-1 and B-2's primary roles were to be the primary strike weapon of the Strategic Air Command which still existed until June 1992. Even without actively promoting their conventional capabilities, just looking at the numbers from the Air Force and the manufacturers back then clearly showed that the B-1 and B-2 were clearly designed for greater conventional capabilities then the B-52. Internally, the B-1 can carry 84 500lbs MK82's and the B-2, which is smaller then both the B-1 and B-52, and it can hold 80 of those. I've seen conflicting numbers, but I don't think the B-52G or H's combined internal and external capability equals those numbers.

Soon after Desert Storm, the Air Force held an event called "Stealth Week" I think in June 1991 in which one F-117, a B-2, and one of the YF-22's were put on display as part of an effort to rally political support for both the F-22 and B-2 programs in light of the F-117's success during Desert Storm. The Air Force also started showing the numbers on how one or two B-2's could do the job of what would take a 100+ fighters and support aircraft (tankers, ECM aircaft, etc.).

Even after all of what was done to give the B-2 ever increasing conventional capabilities and the massive success they have had with the aircraft in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq there is has nothing but continued resistance to reopening the production line.

What is infuriating is that a program like the B-2 or F-22 takes 10-15 years to develop and then they are suppose to provide a deterance for current or perceived threats for several decades to come. But yet, something happens over a period a few months (ie. the fall of the Soviet Union), and quick, rash, and irreversable decisions are made to these programs. The events of the last 10 years have shown that it would have been a good idea to have fielded a full fleet of B-2's. Russia isn't our buddies, China is a threat, there's North Korea, and of course there's a little thing call radical Islam which of course covers much of the whole Middle East and other parts of the world (we will probably be at war with Iran soon).

[kalvasflam]

The B-1 and B-2's primary roles were to be the primary strike weapon of the Strategic Air Command which still existed until June 1992. Even without actively promoting their conventional capabilities, just looking at the numbers from the Air Force and the manufacturers back then clearly showed that the B-1 and B-2 were clearly designed for greater conventional capabilities then the B-52. Internally, the B-1 can carry 84 500lbs MK82's and the B-2, which is smaller then both the B-1 and B-52, and it can hold 80 of those. I've seen conflicting numbers, but I don't think the B-52G or H's combined internal and external capability equals those numbers.

Soon after Desert Storm, the Air Force held an event called "Stealth Week" I think in June 1991 in which one F-117, a B-2, and one of the YF-22's were put on display as part of an effort to rally political support for both the F-22 and B-2 programs in light of the F-117's success during Desert Storm. The Air Force also started showing the numbers on how one or two B-2's could do the job of what would take a 100+ fighters and support aircraft (tankers, ECM aircaft, etc.).

Even after all of what was done to give the B-2 ever increasing conventional capabilities and the massive success they have had with the aircraft in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq there is has nothing but continued resistance to reopening the production line.

What is infuriating is that a program like the B-2 or F-22 takes 10-15 years to develop and then they are suppose to provide a deterance for current or perceived threats for several decades to come. But yet, something happens over a period a few months (ie. the fall of the Soviet Union), and quick, rash, and irreversable decisions are made to these programs. The events of the last 10 years have shown that it would have been a good idea to have fielded a full fleet of B-2's. Russia isn't our buddies, China is a threat, there's North Korea, and of course there's a little thing call radical Islam which of course covers much of the whole Middle East and other parts of the world (we will probably be at war with Iran soon).

So, to throw gas on the fire, this is what happens when you have a republican congress and a democrat president, and they all declare a peace dividend. The sad thing is, all of this was preventable. Well, this is just another sure sign that the US is going to go the way of the Brits (like the turn of two centuries ago).

I can't wait until the first time a B-2 gets shot down or crashes, that would effectively reduce the stealth bomber capability by about 5%.

[Apollo Leader]

Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay and commander of the 509th Composite Wing, dead at 92. I got to meet him and one of the other surviving Enola Gay crew members, I believe the bombadier, 6 years ago this past May at the Strategic Air and Space Museum here in Nebraska. I'll post the picture of me with them if I have a chance tonight.

Both Enola Gay and Bock's Car were manufactured by Martin down in Bellevue just about 15 miles from where I live. The site of the Martin bomber plant is now the main building for the 55th Reconnaissance Wing here at Offutt.

[Nied]

What is infuriating is that a program like the B-2 or F-22 takes 10-15 years to develop and then they are suppose to provide a deterance for current or perceived threats for several decades to come. But yet, something happens over a period a few months (ie. the fall of the Soviet Union), and quick, rash, and irreversable decisions are made to these programs. The events of the last 10 years have shown that it would have been a good idea to have fielded a full fleet of B-2's. Russia isn't our buddies, China is a threat, there's North Korea, and of course there's a little thing call radical Islam which of course covers much of the whole Middle East and other parts of the world (we will probably be at war with Iran soon).

The problem is that those are outright awful arguments for increased defense spending. Russia while increasingly bellicose is still nowhere near having the capabilities of the old Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War (which itself was vastly overestimated at the time), China has almost no ability to project power beyond it's borders, and hasn't shown much of an interest in attaining it, South Korea is close to having the capability to steamroll the Norks on their own, and fighting Islamic terrorism with a conventional military is akin to fighting a cockroach infestation with a shotgun (it's real satisfying on the rare occasion you get one, but it's also not very effective and does a ton of unnecessary damage).

The argument the AF and much of the military should be making is one of recapitalization. We have a bunch of equipment that is wearing out and needs to be replaced, we can replace it with newly built versions of what we already have, or for not much more we can replace it with something much more capable, either way though it's gotta be replaced.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Nied

[kalvasflam]

The problem is that those are outright awful arguments for increased defense spending. Russia while increasingly bellicose is still nowhere near having the capabilities of the old Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War (which itself was vastly overestimated at the time), China has almost no ability to project power beyond it's borders, and hasn't shown much of an interest in attaining it, South Korea is close to having the capability to steamroll the Norks on their own, and fighting Islamic terrorism with a conventional military is akin to fighting a cockroach infestation with a shotgun (it's real satisfying on the rare occasion you get one, but it's also not very effective and does a ton of unnecessary damage).

The argument the AF and much of the military should be making is one of recapitalization. We have a bunch of equipment that is wearing out and needs to be replaced, we can replace it with newly built versions of what we already have, or for not much more we can replace it with something much more capable, either way though it's gotta be replaced.

The two arguments has to coexist side by side. Nied is pointing out that there is a practical rationale for maintaining a larger force, that argument does work especially in the short term (talking 5 to 10 years time frame). A-leader is also right, but he is looking at it from a longer time frame: which simply states that the world politics is dynamic. In 1991, I doubt anyone would believe that in less than a decade, China would've become quite the economic power house, or that some little known terrorist organization would've been capable of killing several thousand Americans in the span of one morning. But that's short sighted thinking, and amply illustrated throughout history. Both arguments are valid in their context, although Nied's does have some advantage in that it focuses the attention of the politicians (they have the attention span of five year olds, and tend not to look beyond the current election cycle).

[Nied]

The two arguments has to coexist side by side. Nied is pointing out that there is a practical rationale for maintaining a larger force, that argument does work especially in the short term (talking 5 to 10 years time frame). A-leader is also right, but he is looking at it from a longer time frame: which simply states that the world politics is dynamic. In 1991, I doubt anyone would believe that in less than a decade, China would've become quite the economic power house, or that some little known terrorist organization would've been capable of killing several thousand Americans in the span of one morning. But that's short sighted thinking, and amply illustrated throughout history. Both arguments are valid in their context, although Nied's does have some advantage in that it focuses the attention of the politicians (they have the attention span of five year olds, and tend not to look beyond the current election cycle).

I should clarify: I find the specific threats Apollo Leader mentioned to be rather less than convincing, and if one were to use them as an argument for further purchases of, say, strategic bombers I would think they are likely to fall on their face. His larger argument concerning future threats and the development cycles of weapons systems is dead on though. The end of the Cold War marks the first time a major power hasn't simply packed up it's military and gone home after a major conflict. Both the Bush I and Clinton admins had a real tightrope act of bringing down military force levels without "crashing" the military. Given the military's performance during the past few conflicts I'd say they were largely successful. That's not to say they didn't make some major errors, but compared to past military drawdowns after major conflicts (for example both World Wars) they did a decent job.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Nied

[kalvasflam]

That's not to say they didn't make some major errors, but compared to past military drawdowns after major conflicts (for example both World Wars) they did a decent job.

I think we would differ slightly on that front. My view is that the military has done a decent job because they haven't had to face a decent opponent on military terms. If they had, the results may not be so clear cut. Given the rearmament that Russia is going through and China's emerging capabilities, it won't be too long before parity is reached.

This goes back to a point about how the military is best used, typically military cannot be used for garrison duty. They are great at smashing things. But the current employment of the US military is sad. That is not to say that if tomorrow CENTCOM was ordered to conquer Tehran and kill the Iranian military, they couldn't do it. The problem is, after that job is done, the US military becomes rather less useful as an instrument of state.

Sorry, we're diverging away from airplanes just now. So I'll leave things at just this.

[Noyhauser]

I think we would differ slightly on that front. My view is that the military has done a decent job because they haven't had to face a decent opponent on military terms. If they had, the results may not be so clear cut. Given the rearmament that Russia is going through and China's emerging capabilities, it won't be too long before parity is reached.

This goes back to a point about how the military is best used, typically military cannot be used for garrison duty. They are great at smashing things. But the current employment of the US military is sad. That is not to say that if tomorrow CENTCOM was ordered to conquer Tehran and kill the Iranian military, they couldn't do it. The problem is, after that job is done, the US military becomes rather less useful as an instrument of state.

But thats just not true Kalvasflam. Militaries can be VERY good at "garrison duties" or what we call today Stabilization Campaigns. But it takes a military specially configured to carry out such operations, that understand how to operate in amongst the people and in a fractured political setting.

The problem is that the U.S. military went away from that model after WWII. It got very good at fighting what can be termed modern industrial wars against a like minded conventional enemy, fighting division vs divisions. Thats part of the reason why it failed so badly in Vietnam. The reality is that we don't really face those conventional threats anymore, and we're very unlikely to in the future. Nied's right, the reality is that what you think of being the threat, isn't really the threat, and we need to get better at fighting those boring pointless wars that we're engaged in now.

Neither of the two main threats you listed are really major threats. Russia is an ageing toothless tiger, with a population declining by 1% every two years due to poor health and a low birth rate. In the next ten years Russia will have a lower population than Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria and Egypt... none world powers. Russia is currently living off of a oil boom, but exclude that vital commodity and exports more to Argentina than it does to any country in the E.U. What you're seeing is as attempt to recapture a faded glory... long since past. China's economy is impressive, yet environmental damage and the One Child policy will actually have a serious negative effect on its growth in the future. Moreover (as Nied pointed out) its military spending has been focused on defensive capabilities designed to ensure that it can't be bullied by other countries. Its got no expeditionary warfare capability and given its political culture, its unlikely to ever obtain any.

It will be one of four main power players in the world, but its not going to match the United States or the NATO alliance. But who would? The integration of the global economy and the prevalence of nuclear weapons makes conventional war between the four great world powers (The United States, The European Union, India, and China) highly unlikely. None of these powers can sustain a modern industrial war without massive dislocation to their economy, something that none of them can afford.

So If you think the current employment of the military is sad, well you're in for a very long century. The reality is that these powers will contest their interests in various regions, like Africa and the Middle East, in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. As a Shell Corporation executive lamented once, the reality is that much of the world's remaining oil sits in politically contentious areas, that are not stable. That means we need stable areas like in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Indonesia to ensure our economies survive. Look how badly our economies struggle with gas at nearly $100 a barrel. Lets imagine that Nigeria collapses into civil war as does Iraq (moreso than now) or Indonesia... how do you think we'll do at $200 dollars a barrel? Furthermore the prevalance of humanitarianism as a reasoning for intervention makes it all the more likely. Having seen what happened in Rwanda, I don't think anybody can stand by and watch one people massacre another in such a way. Some people might not care, but others do.

For all these tasks Western Militaries are paramount, and their tasks are basically very similar to what we see in Iraq today. Stabilization is a messy job, but its one that needs to happen for our own interests, thus Military force MUST adapt to fighting in an amongst the people. Total victory as the determination of how we win wars like in the Second World War or against the USSR is a thing of the past. Look to situations like Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq as what the military (and governments must face.) If it doesn't then we stand to lose out.

By the way, this change is already occurring in the United States, Canada and in Europe (to a lesser extent.) after 4 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has started to adopt the lessons of counter insurgency and stabilization campaigns. The US military maybe is the best military to carry out these missions now. And this is not to say that the future will all be army or marine corps dominated. As we saw in Bosnia and Kosovo the Airforce has a key role to play in coercing parties without the need for major deployment of forces. It may have a role to play yet in Iran (though unlikely.) The low number of F-22s is not a deficiency, but maybe a tacit understanding of what the F-22 might be used for. Its not out of the realm of possibility that the 22 might be called upon to fight a massive Chinese invasion, but a far more likely scenario would be like what NATO had to do in 1995 during Operation Deliberate Force to coerce an end to the Balkans Civil War. A few F-22s will be able to beat a handful of exported Russian bleeding edge fighters, without any lossess. Thats the sort of stuff the USAF really needs them for. Any fight against China or Russia (hypothetical as is) would likely be very bloody in any case and based on something of deep national interest, thus massive casualties might be acceptable. Where the USAF really needs to have dominance is during these small encounters where the domestic public opinion might not be completely for an intervention, so the president will need to be careful how many casualties he can take.

Kalvasflam (and whomever else is interested) I'd really urge you to read this book by Former British General Rupert Smith: The Utility Of Force. Its currently seen as a defining book in military circles on how it needs to adapt to the 21st century. Its on alot of War Colleges reading lists these days for senior leaders of the military: if you want to read what your Colonel or One Star is reading, this is it. For $10 bucks its quite a steal... if you're interested in understanding how modern airforces might be used in a political context, this book will give you an very good overview of where it might go.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Noyhauser

[Noyhauser]

Oh so I don't get called for only talking about politics here's an article from the washington post on Congress and KC-135s and C-130Es. (I don't know if subscription is required)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7102801125.html

[Nied]

Australia is currently in woe. We've recently spent about six billion dollars on 24 yet-to-be-delivered Super Hornets as an interim fighter to plug any gaps that might occur between the retirement of our F-111s and the (distant) delivery of the F-35s.

Four Corners, a current affairs type programme on the government-owned network, aired an episode on monday detailing Australia's conundrum as politics interferes with our usually 'intelligent purchases', making us spend alot of money on fighters that nobody else wants to replace fighters it can't hope to match for our long-range requirements, or match the fighters that are being fielded by our neighbours. We have no carriers, either.

Of interest are tactical simulations showing a formerly secret plan from 1999 to attack Indonesia with a handful of F-111s. The same analysts later run the modified simulation using the Super Hornets versus Indonesia's Su-30s, showing the limitations of the Super Hornet for our requirements.

Video links on the right side (hopefully they work for foriegn visitors):

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2070484.htm

Opinions?

I wanted to wait until I got home from work to watch this, and when I did I couldn't get the video to work. My first thought upon reading your description, and then later reading the description on ABC's site is that this sounds like something from Carlo Kopp, who's been going on about the RAAF buying Raptors or even stranger upgrading RAAF F-111s into some kind of super Wankvark (with F-119 engines and AMRAAMs and SDBs!) for years. His stuff about marauding Indian Backfires is just priceless. Honestly F/A-18Fs should work extremely well for the RAAF, the ones you guys are leasing are the top of the line Block 2 models with AESA radars and JHMCS. Their sensor fit alone should allow them to deal with any of the Flankers in the region except maybe India's MKIs (but honestly Kopp's rantings aside why would Australia go to war with India?) They'll certainly be more capable against a big Su than an F-111.

[David Hingtgen]

I've always thought Australia should go with F-15E's. Much better long-range striker than a Super Hornet, and plenty capable of going against a Super Flanker at range with the newest electronic fits like the F-15K and S.

PS---I can post this in both the plane and car threads! One of the coolest jobs in the USAF has to be chasing down landing U-2's at 140mph. They used to use Z28's, but now it's GTO's:

http://airteamimages.com/displaybig.php?phtID=58010 Just search "U-2" there for more pics.

[Nied]

I've always thought Australia should go with F-15E's. Much better long-range striker than a Super Hornet, and plenty capable of going against a Super Flanker at range with the newest electronic fits like the F-15K and S.

Yes but the SH still noses out the F-15K/SG in avionics. Also this is a lease arrangement, I get the impression that much like their lease of the F-4 before they got the F-111 the RAAF has every intention of giving the Rhinos back to the US once their lease is up and using the F-35 exclusively. They really wouldn't be able to do that with the various super Eagle variants out there.

[Fit For Natalie]

When will the F-35 actually be delivered to any of it's customers?

[David Hingtgen]

2012?

[Warmaker]

When will the F-35 actually be delivered to any of it's customers?

I shook the Magic 8-Ball and it says, "Maybe."

[Nied]

PS---I can post this in both the plane and car threads! One of the coolest jobs in the USAF has to be chasing down landing U-2's at 140mph. They used to use Z28's, but now it's GTO's:

http://airteamimages.com/displaybig.php?phtID=58010 Just search "U-2" there for more pics.

I see your U-2 chase cars and raise you a 727 Bus.

[David Hingtgen]

That gets a "fail" as it's utterly impossible to identify as a 727 at that point---every distinguising feature has been removed. It could just as well be a 737 chopped up. 95% of the plane is gone--everything behind the cockpit windows. IMHO, that's not a converted 727. That's a bus, with a new cosmetic shell on the outside, with a Boeing cockpit grafted on the front. I could add a 727's #2 intake to my car, and have a much more 727-ish vehicle.

[F-ZeroOne]

Recent discoveries in the RAF film archives have revealed that certain assumptions about "the Few" may have to be revised:

(possibly NSFW due to language).

[buddhafabio]

for the lovers of the A- 10 (or atleast the gun in the nose)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=858_1192985738

nsfw for language

[Ratchet]

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...h_the_air_force

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...h_the_air_force

[Lynx7725]

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...h_the_air_force

I'll be the first to say that some of the items inside that article sound correct, but to suggest abolishment of the air force just like that is really very short-sighted.

I think there need to be a realignment of priorities within the US Air Force, but to suggest disbandment is a bit ludicrous IMO.

[the white drew carey]

Yeah. I might have very liberal tendencies in a lot of my politics, but one of them is not when it regards the military. Most liberals and left-wingers have very bad ideas when it comes to how the mlitary should be organized and what it's mission should truly be.