The Greatest Fighter Pilot in WW II???

[plan_D]

Well he should, it was the only thing in Western Worlds arsenal until the Phantom that could reach the altitude of the Soviet bombers.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and it's arguably the greatest interceptor of all time....................

 

[plan_D]

Well it definately was the best interceptor of its day, it's day being 30 years from first flight to being out-dated.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Given the emphasis being placed on multi-mission capability today, it is unlikely that any more pure interceptors will be built.

 

[plan_D]

Mulit-role, jack of all trades;master of none. Although the Eagle airframe does it well. That's probably the best interceptor these days, but you don't really need aircraft for it anymore.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well remember the lightnig was around in a time when the goverment was gonna ditch aircraft alltogether and use only missiles (a really stupid idea) showing how important the aircraft was.......................

 

[plan_D]

In 1947 missiles weren't exactly the standard of today though. Aircraft will always be needed, but since most of todays wars are on inferior nations then aircraft for interceptor duties are falling down the priority chain.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well as someone said, today they want multi-role aircraft, not specailist ones..........................

 

[plan_D]

Multi-role aircraft are stupid though. Multi-role airframes are alright, like the Eagle airframe.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Aircraft today have to be mulit-role capable as no air force (even the US) can afford to buy specific combat aircraft to fulfill one particular combat mission.

 

[plan_D]

Even the U.S? B-52 - Bomber. A-10 - Ground Attack. F-15E - Fighter. B-2 - Bomber...see where I'm going with this? The U.S has specific aircraft because aircraft with one task is better at that task than a multirole aircraft. The Eagle airframe is multirole because you've got the Eagle and Strike Eagle on the same airframe.

 

[toffi]

All these mentioned by plan_D joined USAF many years ago. Right now there is a tendency to put every possible task into one aircraft.

 

[plan_D]

The B-2 and F-15 were both in the days of the multi-role thinking. They both prove that multi-role aircraft are inferior in specific tasks. If these planes were not capable, or even superior, then why would they keep them around.

No one aircraft alone can be the master of all trades. The B-2 is a better bomber than the F/A-18. The A-10 is a better ground attack aircraft than the F-22. The B-52 can only be matched in carpet bombing by the B-2, another bomber. The F-15E surpasses all but the F/A-22 in the fighter role.

Multi-Role aircraft are a jack of all trades, a master of none.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but it's cheaper to but one aircraft that is alright-ish at all tasks than 3 or 4 that do different roles really well...................

 

[Lightning Guy]

How about the JSF? F/A-18? F/A-22 has been mentioned. Virtually every aircraft CURRENTLY under development is being designed to fill more than one role.

 

[plan_D]

Obviously you don't understand a single thing I have said. I NEVER said that aircraft under current development were not multi-role, I stated that the multi-role aircraft is inferior in one task to an aircraft that is designed for that task.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

which is what i said, or were you having a go at LG??

 

[plan_D]

LG.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I would agree with that but the simple fact is that nation's can no longer afford to develop mission-specific aircraft.

 

[plan_D]

No one denied that fact.