Originally Posted by
MD10PLT
You guys crack me up. When I was a young Capt, I too used to talk about all the acquisition screw ups and wonder if any of these higher ups had a clue.
However all this complaining is not supported by facts. People talk about the good old times when we had 10 different fighters a new one being unveiled every couple of years. But here's the facts. During the Vietnam conflict we had a kill ratio as low as 4 to 1 and has high as 12 to 1. These numbers vary throughout all of the conflicts but are generally accurate for engagements up until 1973. Then they built the F-15. Numbers vary on the kill ratio, 196 to 0 was the last one I heard, bottom line there has never been a loss. It's a great airplane, but it had just as many acquisition problems as all these current crop of aircraft. It took 12 years to develop and required many fixes along the way (F-15A vs F-15C)
Referring to bombers, same history applies. In WWII it took 200 aircraft to destroy a target, Korea about 20, Vietnam 10. Now we are at 24 targets per aircraft. And the survivability is unbelievable. Need I talk about the B-2 vs B-17 or even B-52 vs B-1.
Bottom line, it's always fun to bad mouth the current leaders and their decisions about acquisition, yes there are lots of mistakes made, but overall we have made great progress. I have no doubt the F-22 will have as stellar a history as the F-15 and the F-35 will be as equally great as the F-4 and F-16 were in their time. I for one have no desire to go backwards to the days of F-18s, F-15s and B-52s. I'll stick with F-22s, B-2s and F-35s.
BTW I'm 10 years retired, so I don't have a dog in this fight. I just remember the days of guys bad mouthing the F-16 over the F-4 and the denigrating the B-1 vs the B-52.
MD-10, times are different now. Resources are tighter than ever due to the fall of the Soviet Union and our current financial state. The game has changed from preparing for unlimited global warfare and pivoting to regional conflicts to now preparing for regional conflicts while being continuously engaged in "asymmetrical" warfare. Projects like the F-35 and F-22 are great for pushing the technological envelope, but they aren't cost effective for our threats in the foreseeable future. There's a technological advancement/cost effectiveness tradeoff that has to be made.
Also, your perspective might be different if you were Navy. We made the decision to buy the F-14 without an air-ground capability and then not buy the A-6F in favor of the eventually cancelled A-12, basically ending the all weather medium attack platform. The F/A-18 (and the F-18 E/F) programs are arguably the only new fixed wing programs(s) that have helped the Navy's carrier power projection mission in the last 40 years. And yes, to your point, the Hornet had plenty of issues.