Originally Posted by
AZFlyer
50-60 years ago, new fighters and bombers were developed and put in service at a blindingly fast rate compared to today, and it was okay to have an airframe specialize in a particular mission. And didn't that work?
In those days the planes, their systems and tactics we're extremely basic. I mean dropping dumb bombs out of a 45 HARB or 30 DB (which i'm sure UAL T38, could school us all on) is basically the same no matter what aircraft you fly. We also killed TONS of dudes back then as well. Planes crashed at a staggering rate, but they were cheap and easy to replace.
Originally Posted by
AZFlyer
Why the obsession today with shoe-horning every mission capability into a single airframe when we aren't going to be able to afford the damn thing in the end?
I guess the thought process, at the very basic level, is the same as Southwest only flying 737s. There is a cost benefit to having like airframes (ground equp., training, mx, etc...). Plus now you have, "in theory," one airframe that can do the work of two, and do it better... When in reality all you get is an airplane that is mediocre at both and cost way more!
Example: Back in the day, to get checked out in a new aircraft may just be a matter of hopping in the cockpit and having another pilot show you where everything is and what the speed were. Then off on a flight, to figure out the basic handling characteristics and you were "checked out." Nowadays it's a 4-5 months transition course...
Originally Posted by
AZFlyer
Seriously frustrating.
2!
Scrap the 35 and buy Block 60 F-16s or Super Hornets (with upgraded motors)!