4 ms·

>the US doesn't believe its going to get into a fight with a peer competitor, that's why they are ill concerned with dog fighting abilities. Then why don't the

• autokad 11y ago
  I'm not saying they are right in that assumption, and I'm not sure why you would suggest the AC-130. they are more focused on drones for better or for worse
  • fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    The focus of your previous post was that electronic gizmos make dogfighting obsolete and unnecessary. You can put far more electronics and weapons in an AC-130 than in an F-35. I'm only half-joking here. If you have no maneuverability or power advantage, then just forget about dogfighting altogether and take more weapons and countermeasures. If they field this thing and try to rely on it, someone will build a purpose-built F-35 killer for a fraction of the cost and field 10x of them against it in battle; assuming anyone ever wants to have an air war with the US. >they are more focused on drones for better or for worse I agree drones and remotely piloted will eventually supplant piloted craft, but I think the Air Force is a generation of leadership away from that change.
    • rbanffy 11y ago
      > assuming anyone ever wants to have an air war with the US. If the past serves as a guide, it's usually the other way around.
• cmdkeen 11y ago
  Because the AC-130 is far more vulnerable to MANPADs and so has had periods even in Iraq where it was restricted to night flying only due to losses.