![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Frijoles" wrote in message ink.net... Kevin, Ye doth protesteth too much... F-22 is not a 'dog.' But its clear that absent SIGNIFICANT upgrades to its avionics suite it will have nowhere near the AG capability of the F35. That's why the USAF is spending the money, and for their efforts, they should get a nice capability to go with the signature, speed and other attributes possesed by the airframe. Actually, any protestations "too much" are due to trying to correct the ridiculous assertion that it has *no* air to ground capability as is. I understand fully that the optimization of that capability requires money--which is why there is a spiral development plan in place. Recently in this NG we have seen folks try to claim the $11 billion estimate was solely directed at turning the F/A-22 into a strike platform; not the case, as it also includes air-to-air upgrades, ISR upgrade, etc. IMO, the F/A-22 does indeed have its share of problems, chief among them being the change in the nature of the threat it was originally intended to counter; I went on record supporting a 180 aircraft buy before that number even became fashionable in the DoD rumor mill. Currently I'd support a 200-220 number. Nobody has (with any factual basis) accused me of being a rabid supporter of the program--but I don't think there is any point in making up negative points about it either, which is largely what we have been seeing of late. Brooks snip |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|