Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

New USAF Combat Tactic: "Fire & Flee"

Buried in this article about using B-52s and C-17s as "bomb trucks" is a nugget that the F-22 and F-35 can only carry two antiair missiles apiece.

In a fight against earlier (and cheaper) generation fighters, in a 3 on 1 matchup, the F-35s going to have to shot and scoot. Because if it gets caught at gunfighting ranges against a competent pilot, the F-35's probably going to lose. The F-22 might not be much better.


Mark Rossmore said...

That's in a fighter-bomber role. As a pure fighter, the F-22 can carry six AMRAAMs plus two AIM-9s.

It looks like all fifth generation fighters have the "small bomb bay" issue. I was just reviewing the Sukhoi PAK-FA and the Chinese J-20. Both--like the F-22--have capacity for 4-6 AMRAAM-class missiles, plus a "heater" in each of their side bays. It seems to be the basic cost of stealth.

By the way, I loved the veiled Dale Brown reference in the article: "But the B-52 isn't the only *old dog* potentially in this show."

Murphy's Law said...

Time to bring back the last great air-superiority fighter: The North American F-86 Sabre.

3383 said...

The F-111 couldn't satisfy both the USN and USAF. What genius extended this failed "one size fits all" plan to multiple services for multiple countries?

BadTux said...

3383, the hilarious thing is that the F-35A isn't even the same *size* as the F-35C (the Navy version). The Navy version has a longer nose and longer wings and bigger tail, because otherwise landing it on an aircraft carrier deck was impossible (the Air Force version simply has too high a landing speed to land on a carrier deck even with the tailhook wires!). And let's see, if the fuselage, wings, and tail are different, yet you're still calling it the same plane... ROFL! Shades of the F-18 Hornet versus the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, again two different planes with the same F-18 moniker!

So yeah, "one size fits all" decidedly did *not* work, they're just lying and calling it the same plane just to pretend it worked, so that one prime contractor gets both the Air Force and Navy contracts. What a grift!