4 ms·

Because of the theoretical cost savings, as you mention. The JSF was aggressively fashioned toward futuristic notions of distance warfare. Missiles today have p

Because of the theoretical cost savings, as you mention. The JSF was aggressively fashioned toward futuristic notions of distance warfare. Missiles today have phenomenal performance, versus Vietnam era seekers that would fly into the sun. This might have been premature with the unexpected turn into asymmetric warfare. Also, any internet discussion on the A-10 (or SR-71, or Concorde) devolves into uninformed fanboyism, so I won't even go there.

bborud 8y ago
Can you blame them? I mean come on, it is called a Warthog, it looks like one and has the unexpectedly unpleasant personality of one. Adorable :)
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Vietnam era seekers that would fly into the sun Hehe. Have a link?
- captain_perl 8y ago
  It was worse than that. The sidewinder worked fairly well, but the other missiles took 4 seconds to arm, so got many US pilots killed. Top Gun was created because the US was in a draw with the Soviet-advised N. Vietnamese air force.
- dingaling 8y ago
  It was first experienced by Taiwanese F-86 pilots during the Quemoy clashes with China in 1958. Their AIM-9B early-model Sidewinders had unfiltered seekers that considered the Sun as attractive a target as jet exhaust. Later models had bandpass filters to prevent that. The contemporary AIM-4 Falcon missile had a much more sophisticated seeker but had to be cooled before firing and was useless once the coolant ran out, for example if the pilot took too long to get a lock. Modern IR-guided missiles use imaging IR sensors and actually recognise target shapes.
tokai 8y ago
>premature with the unexpected turn into asymmetric warfare This boggles the mind. The US military have had trouble facing asymmetrical opponents close to continually since the Vietnam war. It's not like they haven't had time to see it coming. I think the embarrassment that was the Millennium Challenge war game[0] showed just how out of touch the top brass is. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  It's not about actually figting the war. It's about maintaining the capability so that China doesn't push around Japan, Korea, etc in a way that is bad for US economic interests.
AWildC182 8y ago
Using the Navy as an example since their aircraft fleet is somewhat more simplistic than the AF, historically there were a lot of different airframes on carriers. The iconic 80s cold war fleet was a mix of the following: * F-4 - older multirole fighter, SEAD/STRIKE/CAS * F/A-18 (A/B/C/D aka legacy hornet) - replacement multirole * F-14 - interceptor * A-4 - strike, SEAD etc * A-7 - strike, SEAD etc * A-6 - strike, CAS * EA-6 (significantly different from the A-6) - ELINT/EWAR * E-2 - AWACS * C-2 - COD * S-3 - Anti submarine, Tanker These were pretty much all replaced in the mid 90s leaving the following: * F/A-18 (E/F, basically a different airframe) - multirole fighter, SEAD/STRIKE/CAS and Tanker * EA-18G (basically the same airframe as the E/F) - EWAR/SEAD while retaining marginal A2A capability * E-2 - AWACS * C-2 - COD That's a pretty drastic reduction in airframes to manage so it's understandable why those managing them want to try to maintain consolidation to an extent. Now whether this is the best way of going about it is an open question. The F-18 platform has shown that it's possible but it's also much more mature, having had many decades to work out the bugs. There's also the question of how they managed to talk the navy into a single engine platform but that's a rant for another day... Note: the first list was never all deployed at the same time on the same carrier AFAIK. They travel as squadrons between carriers depending on the carriers mission. The second gets deployed together regularly as they comprise the bare minimum for an operational air wing.

bborud 8y ago

Can you blame them? I mean come on, it is called a Warthog, it looks like one and has the unexpectedly unpleasant personality of one. Adorable :)

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Vietnam era seekers that would fly into the sun Hehe. Have a link?

captain_perl 8y ago
It was worse than that. The sidewinder worked fairly well, but the other missiles took 4 seconds to arm, so got many US pilots killed. Top Gun was created because the US was in a draw with the Soviet-advised N. Vietnamese air force.
dingaling 8y ago
It was first experienced by Taiwanese F-86 pilots during the Quemoy clashes with China in 1958. Their AIM-9B early-model Sidewinders had unfiltered seekers that considered the Sun as attractive a target as jet exhaust. Later models had bandpass filters to prevent that. The contemporary AIM-4 Falcon missile had a much more sophisticated seeker but had to be cooled before firing and was useless once the coolant ran out, for example if the pilot took too long to get a lock. Modern IR-guided missiles use imaging IR sensors and actually recognise target shapes.

tokai 8y ago

>premature with the unexpected turn into asymmetric warfare This boggles the mind. The US military have had trouble facing asymmetrical opponents close to continually since the Vietnam war. It's not like they haven't had time to see it coming. I think the embarrassment that was the Millennium Challenge war game[0] showed just how out of touch the top brass is. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
It's not about actually figting the war. It's about maintaining the capability so that China doesn't push around Japan, Korea, etc in a way that is bad for US economic interests.

AWildC182 8y ago

Using the Navy as an example since their aircraft fleet is somewhat more simplistic than the AF, historically there were a lot of different airframes on carriers. The iconic 80s cold war fleet was a mix of the following: * F-4 - older multirole fighter, SEAD/STRIKE/CAS * F/A-18 (A/B/C/D aka legacy hornet) - replacement multirole * F-14 - interceptor * A-4 - strike, SEAD etc * A-7 - strike, SEAD etc * A-6 - strike, CAS * EA-6 (significantly different from the A-6) - ELINT/EWAR * E-2 - AWACS * C-2 - COD * S-3 - Anti submarine, Tanker These were pretty much all replaced in the mid 90s leaving the following: * F/A-18 (E/F, basically a different airframe) - multirole fighter, SEAD/STRIKE/CAS and Tanker * EA-18G (basically the same airframe as the E/F) - EWAR/SEAD while retaining marginal A2A capability * E-2 - AWACS * C-2 - COD That's a pretty drastic reduction in airframes to manage so it's understandable why those managing them want to try to maintain consolidation to an extent. Now whether this is the best way of going about it is an open question. The F-18 platform has shown that it's possible but it's also much more mature, having had many decades to work out the bugs. There's also the question of how they managed to talk the navy into a single engine platform but that's a rant for another day... Note: the first list was never all deployed at the same time on the same carrier AFAIK. They travel as squadrons between carriers depending on the carriers mission. The second gets deployed together regularly as they comprise the bare minimum for an operational air wing.