[Lakota Mech]

Lots of good stuff in this months Flight Journal. Articles on Medal of Honor planes and Helicopters.The OV-1 Mohawk, Grumman Tigercat and Focke-Wulf Designer speaks just to name a few. Also Flightline Magazine has articles on the navy's Blacktails.

[Art LeBrun]

Not to mention the damnng letter on the F7U....the Korea experiences for the Tigercat were interesting. The radar operator could not get out in a shoot down? Takes
the ultimate deadly achievement away form the downward ejecting B-47 crew member.

[SKUNKY]

...not to mention the eyewitness account of the Hindenburg explosion from a groundcrewmember who was directly beneath it at the time....

[SKUNKY]

Another interesting article in this mag was in the last page's Tailview.....Barrett Tillman's article entitled "Who Needs Fighters?" was quite thought-provoking I felt.

He noted that in the past 35 years (since the end of the Vietnam war) U.S. fighters have shot down only 54 enemy aircraft (1.5 annual avg.) Of that number, 6 were helicopters and 4 were trainers. Compare that to the roughly 3 year period in Korea when American fighter pilots shot down some 900 enemy aircraft.

The point of the article is to ask the question - In the 21st century, just how necessary are these mega-billion dollar fighter programs today?....Do we really need aircraft like the Raptor and the F-35? He questions the necessity of VSTOL capability and notes that even Harriers that were committed to action seldom have ever employed it.

He sums up the article by saying "the fighter pilot has had a great run; he was the most glamorous warrior of the 20th century, proving his worth from 1915 well into the 1980s. But he has been overtaken by events. So let's keep him flying in aircraft adequate to the mission, augmented by sensors and weapons that can kill enemy aircraft on the rare occasions when it's necessary - then let's use some of the savings to buy what we need: body armor, bandages, radios and 30-caliber rifles."

Curious as to what you guys think..Do we really need much beyond F/A-18 (type) aircraft?...while soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan are scrounging around in burned-out hulks to come up with their own protective armor?

[Captain Eddie]

I really do not know....but that won't stop me from throwing in my two cents worth!!

Seems to me that if we got into a war with a major power-say China-we would need fighters to protect our bombers. Doesn't this make sense? Or have we come to where the "experts" thought we were prior to WW II-that the bombers would always get through?

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by SKUNKY

The point of the article is to ask the question - In the 21st century, just how necessary are these mega-billion dollar fighter programs today?....Do we really need aircraft like the Raptor and the F-35? He questions the necessity of VSTOL capability and notes that even Harriers that were committed to action seldom have ever employed it.

I think it depends on who we're planning on fighting. If it's China, and other nations developing hi-tech military forces, then we need these aircraft to maintain our edge. If we're planning to fight wars like we're fighting in Afghanistan, we should probably go with lower tech aircraft that are more suited to that type of conflict.

[djjeffhall]

In the last 30 years the U.S. hasn't fought any major powers, all our conflicts have been against "insurgents" and minor armies. (Iraq) Since we are the only current super power, no we really don't need the Raptor.

However, that doesn't mean we might not need them in the future. To completely dissassemble our air force is foolhardy at best. Reduced for the moment sicne we are the only big kid left on the block? Yes. Removed so there is no preparation for the future? No.

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by djjeffhall

In the last 30 years the U.S. hasn't fought any major powers, all our conflicts have been against "insurgents" and minor armies. (Iraq) Since we are the only current super power, no we really don't need the Raptor.

However, that doesn't mean we might not need them in the future. To completely dissassemble our air force is foolhardy at best. Reduced for the moment sicne we are the only big kid left on the block? Yes. Removed so there is no preparation for the future? No.

I agree. I'm not in favor of getting rid of the Raptor; in fact I think it is necessary to offset China's acquisition of advanced Russian and home-made fighters, both now and in the future. With that being said, I don't think we need to abandon lower tech aircraft completely, either. They are far more useful in dealing with insurgents and lower tech combatants than the super hi-tech aircraft are. A proper mix of aircraft is what we need to cover our bases, so we can successfully fight one enemy and deter another.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by SKUNKY

The point of the article is to ask the question - In the 21st century, just how necessary are these mega-billion dollar fighter programs today?....Do we really need aircraft like the Raptor and the F-35? He questions the necessity of VSTOL capability and notes that even Harriers that were committed to action seldom have ever employed it.

Boy, you're really asking for it now, Skunky!

Shssssssssssss, you might have just provoked someone and awaken his fury's wrath!!!

[SKUNKY]

Originally Posted by flyXwire

Boy, you're really asking for it now, Skunky! Shssssssssssss, you might have just provoked someone and awaken his fury's wrath!!!

Now, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this...In fact my thoughts on this are identical to djjeffhall and Rush.

Nobody loves the "golly-gee-whiz-look-at-that" factor more than me. And I want our stuff to be better than the bad guys' any day, but I do admit I have a tough time thinking about the grunt out there who can't even properly protect his sorry a$$ because evidently there isn't enough money for him, when we seem to have an unlimited budget for developing aircraft that I'm not even sure we really need..... I know that we certainly don't want to find ourselves unprepared if the situation changes drastically, but that doesn't even seem to be on the horizon.......But, I could be all wrong!

I would just like to hear arguments for both sides. Convince me that we must have F-22s and F-35s and whatever other whiz-bang technology there is out there even if we have to continue to steal the grunts' lunch money to obtain it.