Forum: F-35 Lightning II

I understand that building aircrafts is about compromises, and I had a few as to the possible compromises made in various areas.

Hi-Lo vs. Hi-Very Lo: Currently, the US fighter mix consists of highly capable low end fighters (F-16/F-35). Would it be more practical instead to rely on a greater number of high end fighters (F-15/F-22) with austere capabilites for SEAD, and pure ground attack aircraft like the A-10.

Guns: Are the current gun sights advanced enough that we can get away from throwing up a wall of lead at a target and instead rely on large slower firing guns? Would this be better for strafing runs?

Would our tax dollars have been better spent on better jamming pods vs. stealth systems?

F-16.net Sponsor

First off, 'F-35', which is not yet currently in the mix of course, is NOT a low-end fighter, lol. It's indeed designated to be as 'HIGH' as legally possible Wink

Second, it's a bit late to be rewriting USAF policy/procurement for the next 20 yrs... otherwise, your reasoning is on the right track. Thumb

I would say the F-35 still falls on the "low" in the "high-low" mix. Of course that is less about the quality of the aircraft and more about their roles. Certainly plenty of F-16 pilots would challenge the idea of the F-15 being a superior bird.

Of course I think halting F-22 production screwed this all up, and now all of the pressure falls on the F-35 which seems like a recipe for disaster.

Both platforms are disasters

Quote:

Both platforms are disasters

Both the F-22 and the F-35?

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Trade-Off's