On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 12:27:43 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@verizont.net> wrote:
> I am utterly naive in these things, but what is
>point of developing more and better fighters? Ever
>since Vietnam they have been little more than missle
>delivery platforms. Even the 1981 faceoff between
>Gaddafi's Su 22's vs Reagan's F-14s over the Gulf of
>Sidra was just airframes lobbing missles at each other.
One develops better fighter-bombers and interceptors to evade the
ground and air based defenses of our most capable, potential
adversaries. The odds are better than ever that we will not be
confronting only AK-47 armed goat herders in the future. China is
striving toward the ability to invade Taiwan by 2020 and Russia /
Putin is pushing us closer to war with them than we have been since
several high profile incidents during the cold war.
Air superiority is still a significant advantage in any conflict where
you have boots on the ground and air assets supporting those troops.
If you don't have air superiority, you cannot fly your helicopters,
transports and CAS fixed wing assets without subjecting those assets
to tremendous jeopardy, which would likely result in a catastrophic
failure of your mission on the ground.
>
> All the classic use of fighters - bomber escort,
>attacking bombers, control of airspace, ground attack,
>recon - has either become irrelevant or replaced by
>satellites and drones. Beyond the needs of a defense
>industry trying to make itself relevant is there likely
>to be any "winner" in this competition?
That reminds me of the pentagon approach when the F-4 Phantom was
first developed and deployed. The Phantom was first deployed with no
gun because missiles were going to be the future of aerial combat.
I am not aware of any drones or unmanned autonomous vehicles that are
currently capable of fulfilling the CAS role of the A-10 or air
superiority and interceptor roles of the F-22 or F-35, are you?
--
"Reluctantly I have concluded that President Trump is a serious threat to US
national security. He is refusing to protect vital US interests from active
Russian attacks. It is apparent that he is for some unknown reason under the
sway of Mr Putin."
-Barry R McCaffrey, Gen (ret) U.S.Army
|
|