>>favored.
>
>Do you have an opinion about this article Miloch?
>
>
For me, the initial thrust of the article is that there's an advantage of being
able to show what you're carrying using the old no-so-stealthy fighters...don't
just turn all those F-35s over to the Natl Guard to get them out of inventory
and save money to buy more of the one-size-fits-all F-22s.
The Air Force lauds the F-22 but then they have to don't they?...with its cost
over-runs and on-again-off again production runs, it's eating a large portion of
their fighter budget while yet proving it's reliability...and it's outrageously
expensive to operate!!
That and the idea of fighting at a distance was the rule in design without
regard to the reality of close visual interception.
I'm reminded of the F-4 Phantom which originally came without machine guns
because U S Navy and Air Force didn't think there'd ever be any fighter/fighter
encounters close enough to require machine guns...so why have them...just carry
Sidewinders.
Encounters with NVietnamese Migs changed all that.
The services are stuck in the quagmire of thinking that ONLY thru advanced
technology can America defend its borders...the problem is that the complexity
of advanced technology seems to reduce reliability to the extend the percentage
of fighters/bombers at the ready seems to be going down.
...and don't get me started on Air Force pilot shortage...