Anything to protect your fragile American ego, I suppose.Everything the USAF and Navy has is better then anything the RAF has.
Fixed your rubbish up for you.And in general, you have a point
I cant hear you over your old and outdated fighter!Anything to protect your fragile American ego, I suppose.
Fixed your rubbish up for you.
Ah yes, the aircraft that made the USN the Second best Airforce in the world. Only behind the USAF
The Hellcat and the Corsair. Victory at Sea!!!
Ah yes, the aircraft that made the USN the Second best Airforce in the world. Only behind the USAF
True, it was the USAAC/USAAFThe USAF didn't exist back then. . .
I will note that the F-15x as ordered by the USAF last year will finally give the non Strike Eagle F-15 units the ability to actually be useful against ground targets after it replaces their C/D variants. And yes the F-111 probably should have a stealth successor developed and a couple hundred of them produced but in the post cold war budgetary era the closest we would have ever been to that was a proposed Fighter bomber variant of the F-22
Yep they went with the two seat option since they really wanted the ability to be able to do terrible things to ground targets, plus it's a way to be easily set up being able to buy additional birds to replace most of the Strike Eagles as they start to retire without much bother other than the politicans signing some checks.I believe the USAF ended up ordering F-15EXs rather than single-seat F-15Xs, to replace the C/D birds. The first combat squadron scheduled to go operational with the new birds is actually the Oregon Air National Guard squadron based out of Portland, due to their role as the assigned air control alert squadron for the Pacific Northwest.
I will note that having more birds capable of dropping ordnance on a fairly low per flight hour cost means more air support for the troops on the ground and honestly when it involves munitions and not canon fire probably a fair bit more accurate support to boot what the benefits of more modern systems and a dedicated weapons officerGood thing that we need more dedicated fighters. The Army just needs the A-10
Eh yes and no.I will note that having more birds capable of dropping ordnance on a fairly low per flight hour cost means more air support for the troops on the ground and honestly when it involves munitions and not canon fire probably a fair bit more accurate support to boot what the benefits of more modern systems and a dedicated weapons officer
I suspect given that the EX will last some 20,000 flight hours and have low operating costs per flight hour to boot more loitering will be allowed as needed.Eh yes and no.
Depends on the mission time and of loitering is allowed.
Which is not always is.
Loitering is dangerous in the kind of war fare we are switching to prepare for.I suspect given that the EX will last some 20,000 flight hours and have low operating costs per flight hour to boot more loitering will be allowed as needed.
Well,one A-H pilot schoot down italian plane with his pistol...This isn't a warbird, but it IS aviation related. An Austro-Hungarian Empire aircraft aircraft defence mount. Imagine trying to reload ten C96 Broomhandle Mausers, (by stripper clip no less) in the air.
The best-looking of all Dassault products.Mirage 4000.