The Greatest Fighter Pilot in WW II???

• Aug 7, 2004

• #101

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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

 

• Aug 7, 2004

• #102

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Aug 7, 2004

• #103

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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

 

• Aug 7, 2004

• #104

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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

 

• Aug 8, 2004

• #105

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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.

 

• Aug 8, 2004

• #106

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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.......................

 

• Aug 8, 2004

• #107

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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.

 

• Aug 8, 2004

• #108

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Aug 8, 2004

• #109

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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

 

• Aug 9, 2004

• #110

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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.

 

• Aug 9, 2004

• #111

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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.

 

• Aug 9, 2004

• #112

T

toffi

Airman

76

0

Jul 23, 2004

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.

 

• Aug 9, 2004

• #113

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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.

 

• Aug 9, 2004

• #114

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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...................

 

• Aug 9, 2004

• #115

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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.

 

• Aug 10, 2004

• #116

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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.

 

• Aug 10, 2004

• #117

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• Aug 10, 2004

• #118

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

LG.

 

• Aug 10, 2004

• #119

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

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

 

• Aug 11, 2004

• #120

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

No one denied that fact.