Quote:
|
Originally Posted by USMCRET6391
The Corps went through this with the F-14 program in the early 1970s. The Navy wanted us to buy the thing, it was big, expensive and didnt do what we needed it to do. In 1975 the Commandant canceled the whole thing and kept the F-4 until the F-18 was developed. I agree the F-22 is impressive technology, but is it really neccesary to have a VTOL fighter?
|
The F-22 is not VTOL. The JSF has a variation that is STOL capable, but it's a strike "fighter", really tactical bomber. The newest Mirage and Sukhois are actually ahead of the F-15 in some respects. What makes the F-15 virtually unbeatable is the AWACs that lays out the battlefield so the individual units don't have to energize their radars until they are in a tactically superior position. And "Quantity has a quality all its own."
The Navy has the same sort of issue with the Seawolf subs. The LA Class subs are still superior to anything out there but we built three Seawolfs that ware much better.
Ye somehow when the military modernizes its platforms with "cheaper" variants, they end up costing a ton anyway. The F-16 was supposed to be a cheap fighter. All this said, new airframes with new avionics are very useful items. Perhaps we could refit the F-15s that way cheaper. The Buffs are still flying that were built in the 1960's, but they do need new engines someday soon.