Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir
The more complicated a system is the more teething problems it's going to have. Long gone are the days of wooden frames, fabric surfaces, and 80 hp radial engines you could fix with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.
Look back on the original F-4 Phantom ... it didn't have MGs/Cannon ... a rather glaring oversight in a fighter wouldn't you say?
|
Well yes and no. That was about technology seemingly overcoming physics and common sense: Missiles get more kills, more certainly, so who needs guns,
except when you run out of missiles and/or the enemy is right up your rear and he has a cannon and you do not.
The pilot escaping a shot down aircraft, is, surely, a fairly basic thing to get right? Or is it overcoming physics and common sense again: Vastly expensive aircraft, the aircraft is so expensive it should be A) Invulnerable and B) the pilot is, finally, worth less than the aircraft so it is not so important? To me the idea that a F35 will
never get into a close range 'dog fight' goes against all common sense and history.
Don't agree at all, about the pilot, just saying...
I'm fairly sure that X number of F35's with X number of missiles v Z number of enemy aircraft has been wargamed at a fairly professional level and that, for example if you have 48, very expensive, F35 and the enemy has 150 rather cheaper, but more agile, Soviet/Chinese aircraft, that he does not mind losing, the ending is not always all that good, no matter what the people who make (and make vast amounts of money from) the very, very, expensive F35 say...