Uploaded by phallen1 
4000x3000 PNG 4.0 MB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Rainbow Rocks 10th Anniversary - Let's celebrate the 10th anniversary of Rainbow Rocks with an art event! Here
Kick their buts
Precisely: The A-10 is fantastic at ground attack, but terrible at dogfighting, and yet is one of the most valued planes in our arsenal.
On the other hand, the F-22 is the exact opposite. Maneuverability, stealth, and speed make it fantastic for Air Superiority, but almost useless for ground ops.
I will concede however, that the Lightning could find a good role, especially in the Navy and the Corps. STOVL capabilities (B var.) negates the need for runways, just like the Harrier, but it is faster and stealthier (although far less maneuverable due to the lack of miffing) The B and C vars are also currently the only Carrier-capable stealth fighters, so that is a plus.
It depends on the specifics. Sometimes specialization is better.
People seem to forget that the saying goes: jack of all trades, master of none. But better than a master of one.”
The Raptor program is extremely expensive to maintain.
Ehck. I’m still upset they retired the one plane with a long range air-to-air missile.
IMO, the Phoenix is absolutely unreplacable. Taking down aircraft well outside of their engagement range, being able to keep enemy aircraft from taking off even if the airport has a SAM site (I mean, sitting outside of range of SAMs, but still in range for the phoenix you’re packing) - if you’re going to retire the F-14, they really should’ve had something that could replace the AIM-54, first. But nope. No more long range air-to-air!… Freakin’ heck.
I have to agree… and keep the Warthog!
They probably should’ve developed two specialist VTOL aircraft, really… An air supremecy one, and a ground attack one that can carry more weight. Make the two very similar, use a lot of same systems and such, and you could possibly even develop it more cheaply than one aircraft that fills both roles, and get aircraft that are better at each.
@Dragon-Commando
I think China’s more of a threat than a lot of people realize; there seems to be a bit of a cold war going on on that front. The best defense is a good deterrent that will stop war from happening in the first place. The best weapons are ones you never have to use.
I’m actually a fan of a large ICBM arsenal on that principle - ICBM’s aren’t made to nuke cities - they certainly can, but their real purpose is to deter other nations from nuking our cities, with the threat of us nuking them.
I called it junk like I call every other craft of it’s generation, because as I said, it’s tactically irrelevant now. It was just a reason to have money change hands, just like the F-35 and any of the others that will follow. Even the eurofighter typhoon is tactically irrelevant junk, and I liked the idea of it, but it’s got no role that isn’t already filled by a cheaper to operate aircraft.
If Russia and China were actually a threat, like the DOD wanted the F-22 to fight against. Well, the F-22 wouldn’t be all that superior to their offering in a dog fight. But as it stands, dogfighting is a thing of the past, and will only be more of a thing of the past as every other combat technology evolves. The F-22’s stealth capabilities are already out dated, so against a technically capable enemy it’s a moot point.
As far as my rude comment about fanboying, I do apologize. I’ve been around a LONG time, and I see a lot of people spread biased crap.
The F-35 is overweight and underpowered. Limited range and maneuverability (especially compared to the Harriers that it was intended to replace). On the other hand, it has stealth capabilities, a state-of-the-art weapons system, and is supersonic. As a short-range multirole, it is decent, but you know what they say: “Jack of all trades, master at none.”
You still didn’t qualify any reasons for it being “junk,” even…
The F-22 is a superb fighter. It’s the F-35 that is a piece of junk. Even then, the Lightning II does have it’s tactical advantages on the modern battlefield.
I still prefer the harrier, but then again, I’m biased.
I’d hardly call it fanboying, but it’s rather rude to assume those things of me. Overpriced? Probably. Lots of problems in its development that really shouldn’t have happened? Yep. At least it tried to push the state of the art, though - I’d rather see programs try new things and fail than keep the status quo. Failure is part of innovation, the important thing is moving forward.
Overpriced, maybe, but calling it junk is hyperbole and you know it is.
My experience dealing with people on the internet that fanboy over things says that even if I pointed you at all the easily accessible evidence that shows the F-22 project was nothing more than an excuse for a contract, you’d cover your eyes and ears and refuse to accept any of it as reality.
But please, I ask anyway, do some damn research. The thing is a piece of tactically irrelevant junk, just like the F-35.
Expensive? Yes.
Overrated? I dunno. Try saying that when your entire flight gets knocked out by a single F-22 that they never even detected, and their first warning was their wingmen exploding a second before they did.
If Equestria’s packing these bad boys… Then this war would not last long. Not unless the Crystal Empire is packing similar aircraft. It’s considered a next-generation fighter for a reason; the difference in-between the F-22 and the F-15 is comparable to the difference in-between the P-51 mustang and the F-100, or the F-15 and the F-4 Phantom.
@kircher
What are you talking about? These things can’t just go supersonic, they have a fuel-efficient supercruise that allows them to cruise supersonic in a fuel efficient/non-afterburner manner.
OK, digital fly-by-wire
But she was OK having ejected prior to the crash.
@Background Pony #A4BF
In your opinion…
Concorde begs to differ.
Hard to do a sonic rainboom with fly-by-wire