On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:38:13 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

John B. Slocomb on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:35:01
+0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:29:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
Gunner Asch on Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:28:16 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
It's a national treasure. The Air Force wants to kill it:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-bu-1562789528
This airframe should be kept. I'd say a wing of them for special ops.
They are special and maybe 30 kept with the 270 or so kept for parts.
Keep troops trained as pilots and ground advisers if needed.
You need more of them than that. It is Close Air Support.
Something which you need right now, not in twenty minutes. "If I
wanted it in twenty minutes, I would have asked for it in twenty
minutes!"
I am reminded of a story from the Korean war, to the effect that
the Air Force jets would check in with the FAC (Forward Air Controller
- the target designator) and tell him "I've got a couple bombs and
twenty minutes." Meanwhile,the Navy/Marines in the A-1 (Later known
as the Sandy) would check in with "I've got bombs, rockets and about
an hour and a half to kill."
Simply cost effective. If a central American country goes wacko or some
people within do it might be just the trick. A billion dollar machine
that flies to fast and can't turn or hide isn't needed.

Seems like they, the DOD, thinks we can fight a war sitting on our sofa
waiting for updates.
Yep.
http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/humor/drone-operator-vs-vista-support/663148157001/

Personally, I think the entire fleet should be transferred to the Army.
They LOVE that ugly thing.
At least the guys on the ground do.
Hell yes!!!!

Air Force still seems to want billion dollar super jets.

Tech wienies are like that. Good folks if you have deep pockets

The Air Force is still enamored of the FB-111 concept: One plane
to do it all - badly.
That is an interesting statement. I was in the FB-111 test program and
what SAC was saying at that time was that they had asked for a
racehorse and been given a donkey.

The pilots might have thought that, but the Aardvark seem to have
been the only other "Fighter" - after the ME110 - which needed a
fighter escort. The powers which be wanted one aircraft which could
deliver bombs, launch stand off ordnance, and fire missiles to shoot
down intercepting aircraft. What they got was an big compromise,
which didn't really have the payload, couldn't maneuver to save its
life (not compared to the OpFor) and had so many problems with the
"innovations" that it really wasn't good for more than garnering votes
in Congress.

In actual fact the "powers that be", at least in the case of the
F-111, was not the Air Force, it was the civilian portion of the DOD
that was dreaming of an "all purpose" airplane. It might also be noted
that the airplane was built by General Dynamics and one might think
about who was president at the time and where G.D. was based :-)

Generally I found that the military is quite rational about what they
want. SAC wanted an intercontinental bomber that could bomb any target
in the world and the FB-111 couldn't do that, although the performance
of the airplane was, in some sense, really good - hands off flight
from Edwards AFB, in California, to Eglan AFB, in Florida, at
supersonic speed and 100 feet off the existing terrain.

The techno-weenies all have "feature creepism". It is why you
can't get "just a cellphone", software which just types up letters and
reports, cars without "onboard entertainment systems", fighter
aircraft which are optimized for that role, Windows 8, etc, etc.

The Air Force main mission is to fly aircraft any where they want
to go. Purpose designed aircraft - like the F-16, A-10, the B2 -
work. Trying to modify fighters so that they can also do CAS makes as
much sense as trying to modify the A-10 so that it can intercept
fighters.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
--
Cheers,

John B.