Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:22 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:15 am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote:




On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:

I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
carrier-able version of the A-10

Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.

or a new design.

Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good bomb
load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?

One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. Part of the whole
design concept behind it. One Aircraft with 80% parts
interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.

One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. I
know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.

Perhaps the SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
for this role as the A-10 ages. After all it projected that the SM-47
will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
100 Million+ F-35. It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.

Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411
--


How much time in the USAF do you have to know so much about this
"hate"?

Who is going to buy this plane for the Army? Train the pilots? The
maintainers? The supply chain? The weapons? Just buy a plane and give
it to the Army?

You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept of joint
operations.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org


Aggreed!
The playing with the deck chairs of who drops bombs vs flys cover is a
waste. The basic point The F-22 fanclub seems to be missing is we are
not in 1940 England and there is no major air battle comming. The need
now & for the forseeable future is under 10,000 ft. Not Mig chasing. We
have the the force for that & a surplus. Yet the fan club wants more????
Rest of the force be damned? What good is a 500 plane F22 force if they
have no Tankers, Cargo planes, SAR or anything elese?