Whoops - went the wrong way with that!
Though if it is a "klingon-cloaking-device" then they won't see you wallowing down to the deck AOA limited

 

Trumps all.

 

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.

 

Yes, but can't we launch tactical missiles from submarines now? Projecting military might with a manned fighter/bomber has limited days IMO. Drones and other technology are making it so.

 

Totally agree. IR missiles in the 50s, radar missiles in the 60s, active missiles in the 70s, precision guided munitions in the 90s, drones at the turn of the 21st century, air warfare changes fast, yet much of our planning is based on incremental improvements to the old way of doing business, thus we get the Fifth Generation(?) fighters that might be spectacularly capable compared to their predecessors, but don't really address our likely threats.

 

Tactical missiles are hideously expensive compared to dumb bombs, and have relatively small warheads. We could exhaust our entire submarine TLAM arsenal in a couple hours, while a CSG can do 12-on / 12-off flight ops for an extended period.

Missiles (and stealth) are good for disruption of key C2 and AD nodes ahead of the first manned wave, or special surprise attacks, but sustained combat ops (particularly involving ground forces) requires sustained air support...kind of hard to do that if you don't re-use the airplane. However costly you think F-18's are, one hornet can do the damage of many TLAMs in one sortie...and then RTB, refuel, re-arm and do it again day-in/day-out.

Drones could take over as "bomb dump trucks", especially with precision GPS guidance. But if GPS gets jammed (or the satellites shwacked), then your drone will need to vastly more sophisticated weapons delivery capabilities.

 

The Eagle has a claimed kill ratio of 104 to 0, just FYI. At least one was hit by an Atoll in 1982, fired by a Syrian Mig-21 during the Bekkaa Valley air battles. The pilot was able to nurse his badly damaged fighter back to base and it later flew again. Just a historical footnote

 

Bunk,
There was also a U-2 Eagle in 1990 at Elmendorf that was being flown by the squadron commandeer, when his wingman (1st Lt) negligently hit him with a heater. Despite the damage, he got that Eagle back on the ground too.

 

On paper sure, sounds great. But you take a sub or cruiser, park it off the shores of dirkadirkastan... when the flag goes up they shoot their wad and guess what? They are done. Sail home, spend several weeks in the yards reloading. They are also not a fluid platform. Supporting guys on the ground with a weapon that takes hours to plan (on the fast side) doesn't work.

Take a carrier and it's airwing, park it off the coast, and you can project power ashore for as long as you can keep reloading the boat with bombs, beans and gas (read, indefinately). Support guys on the ground, contain their air assets, run recce, or just punish them mercilessly. A boat and it's airwing is one of the most powerful force projection tools on the planet. The flip side to that, is it's also one of the best humanitarian assets too.