F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Still not rdy for prime-time
It's not? It flies where it wants to fly. Iran bitches about the Israelis overflying inside of Iran. The picture that posted showed the Beriut Airport in the background of the photo of an Israeli F-35. Even when a country scrambles because one does an overfly, the F-35 is long gone by the time they get to altitude because even the ground control doesn't know what direction, speed of altitude they ended up at. The same goes if they choose to stay and fight. You won't know that anything is there until some of your flight goes boom in the night. And when you vector in where they fired from, they just aren't there anymore. Talk about the heebie jeebies.
Yeah then why dont they go full production if its so combat tested
Okay, I am going to produce a swiss Army knife. All the blades work as advertised except the cork screw. Now, it's not just any corkscrew. It's a corkscrew that requires a billion lines of code. The Corkscrew gets delayed and the Swiss Army Knife gets produced without that corkscrew. But the Military wants their fancy Corkscrew. So the corkscrew gets delayed and production is kept at a lower level. It's not stopped, it's not even slowed down. It's just not expanded. Meanwhile, everyone that is approved to buy that Swiss Army Knife can still buy them or they can wait until the fantastic corkscrew goes through combat testing. So we stay at the Mark 4 version with the Mark 4 production rate.

Does this mean that the Fantastic Swiss Army Knife isn't the best in the world? No. It still is. But like every other swiss army version, you can't ever say you are through. And much of the F-35 is being introduced into the 6th Gen fighter today. The F-22 is a 5 gen while the F-35 is a 5+ fighter.
You see, a duck can fly, swim, run and even dive. But it do nothing of it really good. A penguin is better diver, ostrich - is better runner, a martin is better flyer.
The attempt to create a sort of the "universal plane" was doomed before it was started. F-35 is not a weapon for the fair combat. F-35 is just a ticket to the club.
It's pretty simple. What you can see CAN hurt you. In fact, it can kill you. Gen 2 of the F-35A has a 20-1 air to air kill rate. The Military isn't telling us what Gen4 can do since the added the Carbon Webbing and a whole bunch of other really heat toys. About the only drawback is you can visually see the bird. A good seasoned pilot can probably eyeball it as far as his radar and IR detector can. A few of our F-15 Drivers could pick up Bad Guys at 15 miles. And the old F-4, using his heat seeker tones and a Weaver scope could go well past that. So it's not perfect. But in a Radar and IR world, it's perfect. The old phrase I used was ICUUCMe doesn't work. ICUUdon'tCMe. is more like it and the one that "Sees" first, fires first and the one that doesn't dies first or at least gets a many G fun ride in a seat.

The Israelis like it. The US AF loves it. The US Marines can't live without it, The Danes are head over heals over it as are the Brits. Even Canada is doing a rethink on buying it now. I go by what the Pilots say, not by what ground pounder says.
 

Silver Cat

Silver Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
289
Points
90
Location
Absaroka
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
 
Last edited:

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,452
Reaction score
10,183
Points
980
Still not rdy for prime-time
It's not? It flies where it wants to fly. Iran bitches about the Israelis overflying inside of Iran. The picture that posted showed the Beriut Airport in the background of the photo of an Israeli F-35. Even when a country scrambles because one does an overfly, the F-35 is long gone by the time they get to altitude because even the ground control doesn't know what direction, speed of altitude they ended up at. The same goes if they choose to stay and fight. You won't know that anything is there until some of your flight goes boom in the night. And when you vector in where they fired from, they just aren't there anymore. Talk about the heebie jeebies.
Yeah then why dont they go full production if its so combat tested
Okay, I am going to produce a swiss Army knife. All the blades work as advertised except the cork screw. Now, it's not just any corkscrew. It's a corkscrew that requires a billion lines of code. The Corkscrew gets delayed and the Swiss Army Knife gets produced without that corkscrew. But the Military wants their fancy Corkscrew. So the corkscrew gets delayed and production is kept at a lower level. It's not stopped, it's not even slowed down. It's just not expanded. Meanwhile, everyone that is approved to buy that Swiss Army Knife can still buy them or they can wait until the fantastic corkscrew goes through combat testing. So we stay at the Mark 4 version with the Mark 4 production rate.

Does this mean that the Fantastic Swiss Army Knife isn't the best in the world? No. It still is. But like every other swiss army version, you can't ever say you are through. And much of the F-35 is being introduced into the 6th Gen fighter today. The F-22 is a 5 gen while the F-35 is a 5+ fighter.
You see, a duck can fly, swim, run and even dive. But it do nothing of it really good. A penguin is better diver, ostrich - is better runner, a martin is better flyer.
The attempt to create a sort of the "universal plane" was doomed before it was started. F-35 is not a weapon for the fair combat. F-35 is just a ticket to the club.
It's pretty simple. What you can see CAN hurt you. In fact, it can kill you. Gen 2 of the F-35A has a 20-1 air to air kill rate. The Military isn't telling us what Gen4 can do since the added the Carbon Webbing and a whole bunch of other really heat toys. About the only drawback is you can visually see the bird. A good seasoned pilot can probably eyeball it as far as his radar and IR detector can. A few of our F-15 Drivers could pick up Bad Guys at 15 miles. And the old F-4, using his heat seeker tones and a Weaver scope could go well past that. So it's not perfect. But in a Radar and IR world, it's perfect. The old phrase I used was ICUUCMe doesn't work. ICUUdon'tCMe. is more like it and the one that "Sees" first, fires first and the one that doesn't dies first or at least gets a many G fun ride in a seat.

The Israelis like it. The US AF loves it. The US Marines can't live without it, The Danes are head over heals over it as are the Brits. Even Canada is doing a rethink on buying it now. I go by what the Pilots say, not by what ground pounder says.
And yet they wont run the necessary tests to prove what it can do.....besides not use supersonic very long without damaging it itself
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs. These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks. It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision. Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert. All with the same Bird. And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally. The only bomb that I listed that isn't internal is the Nuke and it's recessed. All this without drop tanks of any kind. Not if it goes into Monster Mode, it carries almost as large a load as the F-15E of every bomb and missile that the F-15E can carry. Of course, like the F-15E, to be loaded out like that he's going to have 2 drop tanks as well. Unlike the F-15E, if the F-35A gets in trouble, he pickles his externals and goes Poof.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,452
Reaction score
10,183
Points
980
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability
The A-10 can only be use AFTER the area is sanitized by the B-2, F-22 and the F-35. Same goes for every other 4th gen bird. You may think I think little for ground AAs and SAs but they are shit hot. You don't fly an F-16 into a hot area and expect not to either die or walk home. Ask the Israelis.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,452
Reaction score
10,183
Points
980
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability
The A-10 can only be use AFTER the area is sanitized by the B-2, F-22 and the F-35. Same goes for every other 4th gen bird. You may think I think little for ground AAs and SAs but they are shit hot. You don't fly an F-16 into a hot area and expect not to either die or walk home. Ask the Israelis.
BS. They keep postponing its full rate production because they know its crap as a fighter and ya dont need a cpl thousand flying drone operators.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability
The A-10 can only be use AFTER the area is sanitized by the B-2, F-22 and the F-35. Same goes for every other 4th gen bird. You may think I think little for ground AAs and SAs but they are shit hot. You don't fly an F-16 into a hot area and expect not to either die or walk home. Ask the Israelis.
BS. They keep postponing its full rate production because they know its crap as a fighter and ya dont need a cpl thousand flying drone operators.
They keep adding to the list of things they want it to do. V4 was a success but they don't stop there. The F-35 has become the test bed for the 6th gen fighter.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,452
Reaction score
10,183
Points
980
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Thats what drones are for. A-10 has survived and is being refurbed. F-35 we will find out is a specialty craft, having some is a must, having to many is a liability
The A-10 can only be use AFTER the area is sanitized by the B-2, F-22 and the F-35. Same goes for every other 4th gen bird. You may think I think little for ground AAs and SAs but they are shit hot. You don't fly an F-16 into a hot area and expect not to either die or walk home. Ask the Israelis.
BS. They keep postponing its full rate production because they know its crap as a fighter and ya dont need a cpl thousand flying drone operators.
They keep adding to the list of things they want it to do. V4 was a success but they don't stop there. The F-35 has become the test bed for the 6th gen fighter.
Dont need more for that even if true, and that shouldnt stop the test
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
457
Reaction score
133
Points
178
You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
457
Reaction score
133
Points
178
Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world. There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
What?

So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.

How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?






You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier. You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do, is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway. As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
The F-35 was never intended as a primary close air support aircraft. That was just a role tacked on to make the F-35 appear even more economical by adding yet another aircraft (A-10) that it would replace.

Stealth aircraft were never intended to avoid being detected in all circumstances.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,951
Reaction score
21,538
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
Put simply, improve the engine, avionics and weapons fit, and the Harrier will continue to be THE top of the line V/STOL aircraft in the world. There is nothing the F-35 can do that the Harrier can't do, other than fly at supersonic speeds, and be stealthy....which is a capability of dubious need when your mission is moving mud from low altitude.
What?

So the harrier will be superior despite the F-35 being able to fly much faster, have a superior combat radius, far better sensor suite and situational awareness, low observable allowing sorties in more heavily contested airspace, a larger weapons payload, and can function as a true air superiority fighter.

How will the Harrier continue to be the top V/STOL aircraft in the world?






You can retrofit all of the new avionics and situational awareness hardware (cameras mainly) onto a Harrier. You can stretch the airframe and reprofile the wings (aero already done) to improve the range and loiter time, the only thing the Harrier can't do that the F-35 can do, is go supersonic which for a CAS aircraft isn't necessary anyway. As far as the stealthy bit, show me how that prevents the MK I eyeball from spotting you?
The F-35 was never intended as a primary close air support aircraft. That was just a role tacked on to make the F-35 appear even more economical by adding yet another aircraft (A-10) that it would replace.

Stealth aircraft were never intended to avoid being detected in all circumstances.




No shit. However, for the troops on the ground, they would far rather have a reliable, hard hitting CAS aircraft, than a multi role that does only half the job. The Airforce is stupid trying to make every combat aircraft in the inventory super sonic. The CAS role is an example of where supersonic capability is not helpful.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,951
Reaction score
21,538
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.





All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
457
Reaction score
133
Points
178
You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.





All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,951
Reaction score
21,538
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.





All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.






Possible. But in the long run their decisions will cost us lives on the ground. And that is reprehensible.
 

Manonthestreet

Platinum Member
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
25,452
Reaction score
10,183
Points
980
You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.





All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
457
Reaction score
133
Points
178
You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.
I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.





All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.
I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.
A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs
I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.
 

Silver Cat

Silver Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
289
Points
90
Location
Absaroka
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs. These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks. It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision. Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert. All with the same Bird.
But only if GPS-environment is not degraded. If China and/or Russia destroy some of our sattelites with nuclear pumped X-ray lasers all of this GPS-guided sh-t is useless.

And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally.
J-20 with PL-15 missiles or MiG-31BM with R-37M have longer and more powerful "arms".
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
21,165
Reaction score
3,653
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
I don't care what they love. I'm interesting, what can they do, and how expensive is a delivery of warm and heat to enemies. How many dollars should we pay to kill a terrorist or a soldier?
And from this point of view F-35 is expensive and ineffective. It [almost] can't even deliver unguided bombs.
Let's see, at about 60 miles out, the F-35A can drop a single or up to 4 SBD glide bombs. These bombs are dumber than a box of rocks. It can also drop course correcting smart glide bombs as well from 40 miles out with precision. Then it can return home and load up a Nuke and go loiter somewhere or go on Nuke Alert. All with the same Bird.
But only if GPS-environment is not degraded. If China and/or Russia destroy some of our sattelites with nuclear pumped X-ray lasers all of this GPS-guided sh-t is useless.

And still carry 2 Aim-120s internally.
J-20 with PL-15 missiles or MiG-31BM with R-37M have longer and more powerful "arms".
You still don't get it, each and every F-35 has a set of maps already installed. While GPS is the preferred method, if GPS is lost, the F-35 (like the Tomahawks do) reverts back to the maps pre installed. No, the F-35 can't have the entire world mapped out in it's memory to the detail it needs but when it goes into an area, the specific maps are preloaded into it's database. While GPS is nice, it's not needed.

As for the ranges of the enemies missiles, it's a pretty forgone conclusion that when even dealing with Gen4 Fighters, you are going to have to be a hell of a lot closer than your maximum range to tally that kill. You are going to be more likely to have to be within 30 miles or so to get a Radar Kill while a Heat Seeker is going to be not much more than normal visual range. The advantage the F-35 has is that he's going to be guiding in his missiles without using any guidance that the bad guys can detect until that missile is well within the kill range. At that point, the F-35 doesn't go active, the Missile goes active. While the kill rate for that missile is still only going to be right around 20%, the workaround is the F-35s outnumber you and they fire in 6 into your flight. One will get through and one kill will happen. Whatever brilliant plan you had just went to hell in a hand basket. And you didn't have a clue until your wingman went up in a fireball. I don't care how well trained you are, an unseen enemy will cause you to change your tactics fast. You will be worried about the next volley and will it be YOU that runs out of luck.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
33,140
Reaction score
9,389
Points
1,340
..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top