A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Another Ancient Military Plane Grounded



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old December 21st 07, 11:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default F-15 grounding, was Another Ancient Military Plane Grounded

wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:05 pm, wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
If the USAF wasn't so hell-bent on having the latest tech in their
planes, I'm sure Boeing & Lockheed Martin
could sell them more brandy-new Eagles and Falcons. Probably for a
good price too.
In the "olden days" (like, the 1950s-60s) up throught Robert McNamara,
the USAF always had a "range" of fighters to do different jobs. Since
(I presume) the assembly line for Falcons/Vipers could be re-started
fairly easily, you'd think the Air Force would want a few dozen
squadrons of F-16s, and two squadrons of F-22s, rather than (for
example) just eight squadons of F-22s...


The services always seem to want a clean sheet design for new aircraft,
which generally raises the cost substantially.

No one seems to want to take a usefull old design and just improve
it where the technology has advanced, such as in engines, avionics,
and materials.

Though to be fair the Air Force is doing that with the C-130 and
the Army with the CH-47.

Given the current status of our Air Force -- essentially impotent in
the War on Terror, and shrinking fast -- this would seem the most
logical path for them to take. At the rate they're going, in ten
years we'll have a single squadron of fighters on each coast and one
on the Gulf of Mexico, a hand-full of bombers and tankers -- and
that's about it. Everything else will be Air National Guard.


Which is probably as it should be as there is no Soviet Union with
waves of bombers poised to attack the US for fighters to defend against
nor a Soviet Union with US bombers flying 24/7 poised to attack in
retribution.

Plus in an era of ICBM's and cruise missles, the days of massive
fighter dog fights and protection of bombers are essentially over.

The current requirement is mostly for transport of the Army and
ground support for the Army.

It doesn't take supersonic bombers or Mach 3 fighters to do that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Mao charlie will soon be the next boogie man..don't close those Lock-
Boe-Northrop factories yet...JG


How much of your money are you willing to contribute in the form of
taxes to counter what is currently a minimal threat?

Building stuff now means it will most likely be worn out and need
replacement by the time (if ever) it is needed not to mention
the money down a rat hole.

The Chinese have their own problems and little interest in things
outside of Asia other than sales.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
F-35: Second test plane powers up, but first plane stays grounded Mike[_7_] Naval Aviation 1 October 29th 07 09:40 PM
Science Group Wants New Airbus Plane Grounded Until Proven Safe wally General Aviation 3 April 29th 05 07:50 PM
Ancient VOR Transmitter ?? [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 18 February 3rd 05 09:06 AM
Ancient VOR Transmitter ?? [email protected] General Aviation 19 February 3rd 05 09:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.