20 years of Afghanistan and asymmetric warfare and most western of the armed forces haven't developed or operate aircrafts that are cheap to produce and operate.
Isn't this an oversight?
I understand that many plan to use UAV and ucav to do the dirty job, but it is still not the same thing since this aircrafts are not cheap to produce maintain and operate.
At this point the armed forces should be filled with light jets and turboprops to counter the jihadist yet this is not the case...why?
UAV's like the Reaper and the Grey Eagle are cheap to operate and perfect for these wars
Wasting money on manned aircraft specifically to fight them is just money that could be spent on better aircraft with more range, payload and overall capability
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!!!
Have you forgotten that sound user?
Most countries don’t have money to blow on specialized airframes
>yet this is not the case...why?
Because you don't prepare for the last war you fought- Same reason we're not replacing the ABCTs with MRAP units.
At this point the war should be over, but it isn’t. That’s because you can bomb the shit out of a country into submission and kill literally millions but people still will not give a fuck
We all love it, but keep flying those 2 huge engines is not very cheap.
A Super Tucano costs 400 dollar per hour. Of course it is not the ideal solution because a Tucano could be shoot down by a machine gun on a pick up or even by aks.
We need something that can drop 4-6 mk82 from a good altitude and that doesn't cost too much to fly
The cost for 4 reapers+4 stations to operate and 5 years of assistance is 330 million dollars.
This without counting the cost to fly these machines.
The manned aircraft is still, in many ways, a cheaper and better solution even if an operator can't stay up in the air like it is possible with an UCAV.
At the same time a Reaper can't fly at 750km/h to support your besieged troops.
They are a different machine with different requirements
>that pic
Lets compare the f-35 to the a-10 without looking at role and capability because I'm a """""journalist""""".
The A-10 is known for being armored and able to take punishment. All while carrying a massive payload for cas.
With air superiority fighters clearing the air, and EA-18s keeping SAMs and enemy radar from doing shit. The A10 is a superb weapon in the ground war.
We need to scrap the F35 program and invest in more ground attack aircraft. From the start the Raptor has been an absolute embarrassment. Warthogs and Toucanos backed with F16s are the future of our Air Force.
The A-10 is less survivable in a hostile environment then an F-16 and carries less payload.
no amount of practical armor plating on an A-10 will save it from any decent MANPAD/SAM
Armor exist to defend against some really old shit, like AA-machine guns and flake guns. The moment US stop using armor most countries will spaw tons of this cheap guns.
>No amount of practical armor plating on a tank will save it from any decent anti-tan gun
Maybe armor exist to protect against some weapons that doesn't exist anymore, because they can't deal with armor.
Except they haven't and they don't. If they tried to counter F-35s and what not with cheap guns then they're in for a real shock.
You can field so little F-35 or any other top plane, that it's a good strategy to simply ignore the top planes.
This. We need more fast, cheap fighters. F-35 is a Wunderwaffe tier pipe dream.
Dumb ESL nigger.
Just remember how useful V2 was in WW2.
The day US stop using armor, some really crap AA gun will appear again and start taking down American planes.
Can you remember what happened when US decided to make airplanes without outdated shit like machine guns?
What all goes into this? I just can't imagine an osprey costing 70k to fly for an hour. I know this and maintenance+parts and everything but I figure the techs are only making 40-50k a year and several hours work between several of them isn't even scratching close to that.
the problem with light planes is that they are not heavy.
This is actually my point. The F-35 will never be mass produced. It's simply to delicate and precise a craft. Like make a few for Ace units maybe but it's a huge waste of money if you ask me. It is to the Air Force what the Comanche was to the Army
>The cost for 4 reapers+4 stations to operate and 5 years of assistance is 330 million dollars.
That sounds cheap as fuck.
Don't forget F-22, B2 and all the useless expensive toys kept in hangars while F-16 do all the fight.
The more expensive multi-role aircraft are plenty capable of delivering ordinance and the “added” cost of using them for COIN isn’t worth the investment and logistical cost of fielding them. We’ve got thousands of 4th gen strike fighters sitting around and more being built. Why go backwards?
Tbh all we needed to do was upgrade the F-16s and advance that line. Not Autistically throw billions at a "Uberplane" that is neve even gonna be used.
>Why go backwards?
Because US fight a war somethings and would be good to have some modern usable planes.
For insurgent suppression some 50's plane mass produced is more than enough.
Being honest, a zeppelin would do the work well in Syria.
The F-35 is expensive now because the R&D cost are spread across few frames and it still needs to rollout. In ten years it's going to be the F-16 replacement and fucking everywhere, with per-aircraft cost dropping until they end the program to switch to next-gen unmanned aircraft.
Unironically bring back the Freedom Fighter and Skyraider
USAF Generals don't like cheap aircraft. They also dont like CAS they prefer interdiction with expensive high tech aircraft.
Literally one of the reasons they want to fade out the a-10 and started doing that years ago.
>They prefer high end
That's simply a matter of ego. The USAF hasn't faced anything better than a Cold War MiG in over 20 years. We don't need shit that costs millions of dollars per plane to simply operate well. A fleet of F16s backed with A10s and Light Attack Craft is plenty sufficient for modern work.
>The A-10 is less survivable in a hostile environment then an F-16 and carries less payload
>The A-10 is less survivable in a hostile environment
>The A-10 is less survivable
Explain this then?
This kind of quality is exactly why we should refocus our air force. What we need is to put the quality fighter obsession into our CAS. Bin the idea of Wunderfaffen tier fighter, and go for reasonable models. A swarm of light fighters and F16s in front of quality CAS would pay for itself in no time and save an assload of cash
F16 is a single engine fighter. Most air strikes are from carriers, who has a golden rule that is now a law for military. Twin engines only. One engine gives out, there is a second one. They must be independent, and for whatever reason they are trying to force the F35 past this law.
It wasnt working, and they had to ship F-35's in carriers, then in a load boat to shore, ferried to a runway and then assembled for takeoff.
Only emergency situations is a single engine jet to land on a carrier.
A rule made in the 1990's, F-15's and F-14's were the primary craft of the era. The rule was vaguely followed since the 80's.
Bring back the A-6
It is 1000% less survivable. So much so that they were grounded in Gulf War 1 and 2 until complete air dominance was established.
As soon as a threat of manpads pop up the A10's disappear for a while.
fuel and parts.
parts for these things are insanely expensive and fuel is a whole different animal.
the fact that you posted this picture proves the anons point.
what the absolute fuck is this nonsense
>As soon as a threat of manpads pop up the A10's disappear for a while
Wow it's almost like in general CAS doesnt want Sam's to be able to hit them. Shocking.
Yet another sign of the culture of wasteful spending.
huh
Theres already 400 produced and being delivered globally.
>400
Wow.
And each one is a waste of money that could be used on aircraft we will actually use .
which is more than could be said for some of ol' Ivan's souped up Flanker variants
>Russian President Vladimir Putin flew to the country's southwestern region today on board his IL-96-300PU presidential plane with an escort of six Su-57s, roughly half of the total number of the advanced fighter jets that the country has in total
oh no no no
look at this dood
>my nation has more Hangar Ornaments then yours does
>Yet another sign of the culture of wasteful spending.
incorrect. tooling for these jets have to be precise to beyond nano meters. technology has moved on.
>t.
cope
>Wow it's almost like in general CAS doesnt want Sam's to be able to hit them.
no other CAS jet has to avoid MANPADs from the 70s like the A-10
>works for LM
>Argues for LM
Like pottery
>Like pottery
Sherlock Holmes on the case, I see
sorry m8, but this is whats happening across every platform. even the vatniks know that jets cost more.
i hate to break it to you, but the boomer fantasy of cheap jets being shat out for bargain prices has been over since the 60s
>Talks about fantasy
Coming from the guy who is asking for a modern pipe dream Wunderwaffe that's funny.
tell me what jet you think can fulfill a modern combat roll at under 10 million dollars. :^)
400+ aircraft is not a fantasy.
There is a difference between being expensive and being a net loss. The F 35 is literally a hemopheliac of a Plane. This obsession with Muh Super fighters is literally just a way for the AF Brass and their Industrial leash holders to mutually benefit.
so you cant. thanks for playing.
if you actually took ten seconds out of your day to think about the words that slip past your teeth and lips, you would realize that multiple fighters doing different tasks is not as efficient as one fighter doing multiple tasks. every single air force today recognizes this.
but who are they kidding? youre obviously the smart one, all other air forces today are just out of touch.
It's just decadence. When was the last time an army needed decent fighters? We use this multi-role trash because nobody has tried to fill the sky with metal recently. It's only when they get BTFO some time in the next two centuries that the quick, cheap and effective stuff will be produced again assuming our civilization doesn't suddenly collapse.
>one fighter doing multiple tasks
Except it cannot do any of them as well as a craft dedicated to that purpose. Jack of All is a bullshit idea for design.
is that why the PLAAF are pursuing stealthy multirole aircraft
is that why the Russkies uses the Flanker platform for literally everything
When was the last major air war you retard? You want to be the poor bastard in an F35 outnumbered 5-1 by enemy MiGs in the air?
nigga what? the F-15 was designed for fighting and its one of the best bomb trucks the US has ever had. tell me, what was the last purpose built fighter? the P-47? are you arguing that we put radials back into service to go against flankers?
lmao, you must be either really butthurt about your planefu getting retired or are the king of boomers.
lotta good those human wave tactics did, huh?
China has been trying to copy the West and Russia ever since WW2. That doesn't mean it's good but rather it's better than what they had.
Air wars are so rare nowadays that BVR missile hits are the most common form of destroying enemy planes. These hits are almost always on a target that either didn't know they were being targetted or were flying a 1960/70s piece of junk that had no hope of evading.
>NVA pilots
Are you going to brag about beating up autistic 5th graders next?
The most successful "workhorse" aircraft were single role that were adapted to multirole.
>China has been trying to copy the West and Russia ever since WW2.
this is clearly because they are corrupt. not because the strategy has worked for every large airforce since the cold war.
the PLAAF should listen to you user, they would overtake the world in just a decade with their mass produced P-47s
>literally proving the chart right
lmao
Shooting down half trained pilots is never going to be impressive.
>Hurr durr lets use a WW2 plane instead of a modern specialized fighter.
Swarm tactics user is another guy. I want up to date single role fighters that can be used in hunter pack tactics with a small number of fighters gangbanging a multi-role.
I dont know why your bothering. He's literally a paid LM shill. If it's not an autistic Wonder Weapon he isnt in favor of it
then the air force will inevitably face a situation where they'll need to sling bombs/a2g missiles, will retrofit such capabilities onto your single role fighters, and we'll be back to square one.
and when the fuck have single role fighters been produced? WW2 or the 50s back when all you needed for a fighter is a gun. that shit doesnt work nowadays.
remember the F-4? that was supposed to be an interceptor, but turned into the most successful multi-role the US has ever made.
ugg... what could have been...
>that shit doesnt work nowadays.
>because it isnt usually tried that means it cant work
God I cant wait for Drones to put Dickheed out of business.
it has been tried. it did not work and it was just turned into a multi role anyways.
You can use shittier planes to deliver the bombs. If you are using combined warfare properly then you don't have to use the fastest planes because your ground forces sweep points of AA resistance once you control the sky.
I'll give you that multi-roles fit perfectly into the modern American meta of sneakily dropping a few bombs in the middle of an enemy controlled city then running away.
>modern American meta of sneakily dropping a few bombs in the middle of an enemy controlled city then running away.
hey buddy, dunno if you've heard, but real life isn't like your videogames. there are no rules, only tools. if that "meta" lets us prosecute the mission safely and efficiently, than you'd have to be retarded to refuse.
good god, i have never heard dumber words come out of someones mouth.
unironic spreyfags are truly an enigma
Lockheed makes drones as well.
>efficiently
Not with the F-35 drinking more fuel than an Irishman does Whiskey
>if it goes against current doctrine it is automatically dumb
>Air Doctrine is sacred
Literally Maginot Line tier.
that's rather hilarious coming from people still spewing the fighter mafia's bullshit
>Bullshit
Current air doctrine is literally just a way for the Industrial complex to get the better of us. These ridiculous super planes are a waste of money and time. We need Good pilots with affordable planes that will actually see use. Not damn wonder machines that will warm a hanger until the next 30 billion dollar project comes along.
>he thinks the F-35 guzzles gas yet he unironically thinks the A-10 is fine
nigga that thing has two airliner engines attached
>Current air doctrine
you mean the design belief that every airforce has subscribed to for the past 50 years? no, everyone else is wrong, random user on Jow Forums is the real air marshal.
>Safely and efficiently.
Safely sure. Efficiently lol no. The Russians carpet bomb targets far better than the USA ever will. It also costs them far less (in terms of money rather than human lives).
Take Assad for example. He's supposedly using barrel bombs that cost fuck all to produce and do heavy damage. The USA is mad because he's bombing the USA funded rebels at a fraction of the cost it takes to arm the rebels.
And yet you present no actual argument. simply establishment cock guzzling.
>he actually fell for pravda memes
and now we see where these posts are coming from.
>carpet bombing
>efficient
does it look like its still 1944, user?
there was no argument to begin with. you are spouting memes that not a single rational person subscribes too.
sometimes the establishment is right.
do you shout and scream at your dentist when he tells you to brush your teeth because he's part of the dental establishment?
>levels the enemy city
>not efficient
Now imagine a swarm of 10 Light fighters, each with a well trained pilot versus an F-35.
Do none of you retards know what a Wild Weasel is? No? With them you can pretty much nullify any MANPAD system and most of the sand nigger AA missiles, including the SA-2 and SA-3, which are incredibly common in the middle east. Super Tucanos don't have to fight MIGs or the J-whatevers the chinks have, they just have to bomb mud huts and technicals
Who beat ISIS?
>Arab Infantry that ran away or defected.
>Months and months of coalition bombing.
>A few weeks of Russian bombing (that dropped more bombs than the coalition).
Dropping lots of bombs relatively indiscriminately is indeed still relevant.
The fact that the USA tries to avoid 'civilian casualties' is why they have sucked balls in every war they have been in post Korea/Vietnam.
i'm imagining 10 caskets being sent home