3 ms·
There was a lot of turn-over (no pun intended) in strategic heavy bombers until the B-52. There were also all sorts of medium-heavy and heavy bombers between th
by sacnoradhq 4y ago
There was a lot of turn-over (no pun intended) in strategic heavy bombers until the B-52. There were also all sorts of medium-heavy and heavy bombers between the B-17 and the B-52.
The MiG-25 had to swap engines after every flight.
Meanwhile, the A-10 is and was an amazing design and yet they want to ditch it.
The F-22, B-1A/B, B-2, KC-46 were previous boondoggles.
And now, ditching the Viper and Hornet for an Jaguar X-type with an unusable motor.
MIC loves it: more problems = more $$$
- simplotek 4y ago> Meanwhile, the A-10 is and was an amazing design and yet they want to ditch it. I believe the argument that the A-10 is obsolete is the fact that nowadays the US armed forces have at their disposal far more efficient and safe ways to destroy ground targets and conduct close air support missions. The design of something is irrelevant if it's obsolete. I'm sure there were exquisite buggy whips back in the day. Here's an age-old HN post that amusingly enough is a top search hit on Google on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11031662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11031662
- mitthrowaway2 4y ago> The MiG-25 had to swap engines after every flight. Only when it was pushed to the edge of its operating limits, if I understand correctly?