What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?

[pbehn]

Bias?

I've read through everything written here and while I acknowledge this craftsmen limitations, the upside of a 400-mph bomber with the best survivability rate of the war delivering relatively small loads but at pinpoint accuracy makes this discussion worth have. A similar number of Lancasters were produced, but did they do more to defeat Hitler?

>>An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons! ((raf.mod.uk))<<

More Mosquitoes would mean fewer V-1's, right? (Interesting side-note on how they perfected methods of taking then down in flight before the Typhoons. More Skeeters would have meant fewer V-1s hitting London, right?)

The authoritative finality of you and several posters on this thread that seeks to demolish an opposing view rather than to engage it bodes poorly for continued re-learning of history. How are we to engage today's youth to the point that they take another look at these issues if all of them have been resolved?

This is not a settled issue and the ramifications of bomber theory of that era and procurement principles still resonate in the Pentagon.

The de Havilland Mosquito and the heavy bombers

Can you explain how a short lived cross channel campaign in 1944 can justify changing all USA planning in 1940 for a plane that is still on the drawing board? It is serendipity, just as the P-51B/C and D were, the ordering of the Mustang MkI into production had nothing to do with the later need for a long range escort fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

As has been noted many times, a big flaw in the Mosquitos instead of B-17s idea is timing.

On 20 April 1941, W4050 was demonstrated to Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Aircraft Production. The Mosquito made a series of flights, including one rolling climb on one engine (which a P-38 can do as well, my note). Also present were US General Henry H. Arnold and his aide Major Elwood Quesada

Packard was in talks to make the Merlin in the summer of 1940 although contract wasn't signed until Sept 1940.
Ford was licensed to make the R-2800 in Sept of 1940.
Buick was licensed to make R-1830s in Oct of 1940.
In Nov of 1940 Studebaker was licensed to make the Wright R-2600 but this changed at Government request to R-1820 engines for the B-17 program in June of 1941. The Government figured that Studebaker would be able switch engine versions better than Wright as they were still tooling up. Other companies were brought in later.
Buick did not deliver an engine until March of 1942.
Studebaker did not deliver and engine until Feb 1942.
Ford delivered their first engine in Oct 1941 (1 engine)
Packard delivered 45 engines in all of 1941. However by May/June of 1941 when some people want the US to fall all over the Mosquito the engine plants were making
Studebaker 168/387
Buick..............616/700
Ford................526/530
Packard..........602/702
Chevrolet.......21/183

P & W R-1830s 469/542
Wright R-1820s 342/340

This is just engines, 3 different factories were tooling up for B-17 production.
The Americans are supposed stop or rapidly phase out production, change over tooling, retain work forces (or build new factories that go into production while the old ones phase out.
All for a twin engine aircraft that carries 2000lbs of bombs at best (or only 1000lbs in April of 1941?)
The B-17 was supposed to carry 4000lb for 2000 miles but that is not formation flying.
Max load for shorter distances was 8000lbs.

So in mid 1941 or very early 1942 you need four Mosquitos to carry the same bomb load as one B-17.
The Mosquito bomber won't fly in combat until May of 1942 an US combat experience with the B-17E (as opposed to earlier versions) is pretty scanty.
So actual proof of combat capability of either airplane is lacking.

You won't get a large number of planes in 1942, there isn't enough time.
You won't even get a large number in 1943 and you are loosing production of B-17s in the change over.

We can debate the effectiveness in 1944 but that is about 3 years after the proposed change date.

 

[pbehn]

As has been noted many times, a big flaw in the Mosquitos instead of B-17s idea is timing.


Packard was in talks to make the Merlin in the summer of 1940 although contract wasn't signed until Sept 1940.
Ford was licensed to make the R-2800 in Sept of 1940.
Buick was licensed to make R-1830s in Oct of 1940.
In Nov of 1940 Studebaker was licensed to make the Wright R-2600 but this changed at Government request to R-1820 engines for the B-17 program in June of 1941. The Government figured that Studebaker would be able switch engine versions better than Wright as they were still tooling up. Other companies were brought in later.
Buick did not deliver an engine until March of 1942.
Studebaker did not deliver and engine until Feb 1942.
Ford delivered their first engine in Oct 1941 (1 engine)
Packard delivered 45 engines in all of 1941. However by May/June of 1941 when some people want the US to fall all over the Mosquito the engine plants were making
Studebaker 168/387
Buick..............616/700
Ford................526/530
Packard..........602/702
Chevrolet.......21/183

P & W R-1830s 469/542
Wright R-1820s 342/340

This is just engines, 3 different factories were tooling up for B-17 production.
The Americans are supposed stop or rapidly phase out production, change over tooling, retain work forces (or build new factories that go into production while the old ones phase out.
All for a twin engine aircraft that carries 2000lbs of bombs at best (or only 1000lbs in April of 1941?)
The B-17 was supposed to carry 4000lb for 2000 miles but that is not formation flying.
Max load for shorter distances was 8000lbs.

So in mid 1941 or very early 1942 you need four Mosquitos to carry the same bomb load as one B-17.
The Mosquito bomber won't fly in combat until May of 1942 an US combat experience with the B-17E (as opposed to earlier versions) is pretty scanty.
So actual proof of combat capability of either airplane is lacking.

You won't get a large number of planes in 1942, there isn't enough time.
You won't even get a large number in 1943 and you are loosing production of B-17s in the change over.

We can debate the effectiveness in 1944 but that is about 3 years after the proposed change date.

Order everything in January 1939, beat the market by getting in before any war starts?

 

[special ed]

I guess I just don't understand the idea of history by consensus.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Bias?

I've read through everything written here and while I acknowledge this craftsmen limitations, the upside of a 400-mph bomber with the best survivability rate of the war delivering relatively small loads but at pinpoint accuracy makes this discussion worth have. A similar number of Lancasters were produced, but did they do more to defeat Hitler?

No - for the technology of the day it took round the clock strategic and tactical operations to include fast tactical bombers like the Mosquito when the mission dictated.

>>An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons! ((raf.mod.uk))<<

One mission campaign - you're cherry picking.

More Mosquitoes would mean fewer V-1's, right? (Interesting side-note on how they perfected methods of taking then down in flight before the Typhoons. More Skeeters would have meant fewer V-1s hitting London, right?)

And the same here

The authoritative finality of you and several posters on this thread that seeks to demolish an opposing view rather than to engage it bodes poorly for continued re-learning of history. How are we to engage today's youth to the point that they take another look at these issues if all of them have been resolved?

By educating them with the technical facts of how the aircraft really operated, their strengths and limitations, the technologies available of the day as well as the doctrine that was being used by the military leaders who deployed these machines along with the men who flew them!

This is not a settled issue and the ramifications of bomber theory of that era and procurement principles still resonate in the Pentagon.

Says the guy who never worked on a government contract - can you give an example?

The de Havilland Mosquito and the heavy bombers

A theoretical blog? Really? These examples that were shown, have anyone plotted range, fuel consumption and realistic bombloads?

Bill said it earlier, and you as an individual who probably never maintained or flown an aircraft perhaps can't grasp:

"Just for drill, get your combat loading vs Combat Radius charts for any Mosquito type you propose to use for Ploesti and pick the airfield launch site out of range from LW intruders in Med and propose a Plan (altitude and airspeed) to attack Ploesti. Do Not fly a straight line course."

 

[GrauGeist]

lol...if one actually read the entire ww2 podcast instead if cherry picking to prop up a defense, this would have been seen:

"So if we take theoretical "thousand bomber raid" of Lancaster bombers, they could deliver a staggering 9,821 tons of explosives. It would take five thousand, five hundred Mosquito's to deliver that amount.

One thousand Lancaster's would have a crew of 7,000 men, five thousand, five hundred Mosquitos would need 11,000 men!

On the face of it that justifies the use of the heavy bomber by utilising fewer aircrew. But what about accuracy?

An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons! ((raf.mod.uk))​

Where does that leave us?

Perhaps it was actually best employed in the role it was so often used, as part of the RAF Pathfinder Force. Flying ahead of the main bomber stream with their speed and accuracy they were ideal at marking targets for those that followed."

 

[Shortround6]

The de Havilland Mosquito and the heavy bombers

"On the face of it the statement is true. The B-17 would carry 3,500b of bombs to Berlin and the Mosquito 4,000lbs. But the devil is in the detail, the Mosquito had to deliver its payload as either one bomb of 4,000lbs or as four 500lbs bombs. Whereas the B-17 payload would allow for a much wider variation, so was more flexible."

2nd paragraph from the link provided.
Already shown to be in error by the 303rd Bomb groups combat reports.

Which then cast doubts upon some of the rest of the article?

 

[wuzak]

More Mosquitoes would mean fewer V-1's, right? (Interesting side-note on how they perfected methods of taking then down in flight before the Typhoons. More Skeeters would have meant fewer V-1s hitting London, right?)

It would be interesting to compare the effects of different situations had on the number of V-1s hitting London.

• The double-cross network feeding the Germans faulty V-1 hit locations - caused V-1s (and V-2s) to fall short of London
• Fighters shooting down or disrupting the flight of V-1s
• Bomber strikes against fixed launch sites
• The advance of the allied armies across France taking V-1s out of range
• Pre-emptive strikes against test and production facilities - such the one against Peenemünde on the night of 17/18 August 1943 - delaying production and deployment.

The last date should be of not - that was the evening of the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission by the USAAF. Originally the RAF were to hit Schweinfurt that night, to back up the USAAF's raid. Had that occurred, Germany's ball bearing manufacturing may have been critically wounded.

 

[Donald Johnson]

lol...if one actually read the entire ww2 podcast instead if cherry picking to prop up a defense, this would have been seen:

"So if we take theoretical "thousand bomber raid" of Lancaster bombers, they could deliver a staggering 9,821 tons of explosives. It would take five thousand, five hundred Mosquito's to deliver that amount.

One thousand Lancaster's would have a crew of 7,000 men, five thousand, five hundred Mosquitos would need 11,000 men!

On the face of it that justifies the use of the heavy bomber by utilising fewer aircrew. But what about accuracy?

An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons! ((raf.mod.uk))​

Where does that leave us?

Perhaps it was actually best employed in the role it was so often used, as part of the RAF Pathfinder Force. Flying ahead of the main bomber stream with their speed and accuracy they were ideal at marking targets for those that followed."

Considering that the first "thousand bomber raid" was more propaganda than an effective attack plan to deliver a crippling blow to German industry. It was intended to bring Germany to its knees and cripple morale, something the German bombing of London didn't accomplish. Did we think the Germans were going to buckle if we killed enough civilians? Or did this simply result in their being more likely to lynch bomber crews (800, by one account I recently read).

People understand bombing military targets--that's war, after all--but legitimizing civilian terrorism has the effect of uniting people against a common foe, disregarding how awful the Nazis actually were.

"Where does that leave us?" is exactly where I was going. I'm not purporting to have all the answers but neither do any of you.

Too many on here have categorically dismissed alternate scenarios of target selection and tactics adjusted to suit the more plentiful Mosquitoes had a thousand more been available sooner. It could have altered the 8th's strategy, especially considering the disaster at Schweinfurt. Could Mossies have penetrated their AA defense and done more damage to specific targets with cookies? Even a failure would have resulted in far fewer losses (that's been suggested here).

Yeah, pathfinders were great, night fighters were, too. (The best way to destroy a Me 262 was on takeoff and landing, but I agree that speed advantages of FW 190s reduced its role there). Having increased flexibility to make different choices is what I'm going for.

Yeah, the logistics of building this with available engines in 1941-2 were atrocious, but the Canadians were attempting to do so in Ontario with initially poor results. Cooperating with a Detroit plant using Chriscraft technicians may have mutually boosted that production and quality; I understand the Brits reduced those first ones from Canada to cannibalization.

I'm challenging the way things were conceived and executed, that minds existed then that could have made larger, more diversified production of the Mossie a reality. I'm insisting that narrow military minds blocked radical development at a time when it was most urgently needed, that these limited thought processes yet exist, even dominate in our military procurement and strategy.

It's highly unlikely that the F-35 will win our next war or even prevent one. The weapon that will determine the future likely has yet to be invented, though there are those who may be imagining it right now. Chances are that it will be far less expensive to produce and maintain that that Hangar Queen.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's highly unlikely that the F-35 will win our next war or even prevent one. The weapon that will determine the future likely has yet to be invented, though there are those who may be imagining it right now. Chances are that it will be far less expensive to produce and maintain that that Hangar Queen.

And this is why you're not taken seriously. Hangar queen? Do you know what an FMC rate is? Look it up. The F-35A (the Air Force version, just in case you don't know there are 3 versions of the aircraft) has a current FMC rate higher than the F-22, B-1, B-2, and B-52. I could go on. Stop reciting what you hear on the nightly news hour or CNN!

 

[Donald Johnson]

And this is why you're not taken seriously. Hangar queen? Do you know what an FMC rate is? Look it up. The F-35A (the Air Force version, just in case you don't know there are 3 versions of the aircraft) has a current FMC rate higher than the F-22, B-1, B-2, and B-52. I could go on. Stop reciting what you hear

Former U.S. Sen. John McCain, a former U.S. Navy pilot, called the project "both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance." After his death, no other politician has held Lockheed accountable. Despite not meeting standards, with 13 deficiencies still unaddressed this summer, the Department of Defense has totally ignored the Nunn-McCurdy Law, which calls for projects that exceed cost estimates by 50 percent to be cancelled.
The Project on Government Oversight blasted the F-35 program, stating "With the revelation that officials made paperwork fixes to make serious deficiencies appear acceptable, it seems that much of that work is being ignored in the name of political expediency and protecting F-35 funding."
Opinion | The F-35 is already obsolete

 

[Dana Bell]

Bias?

I've read through everything written here and while I acknowledge this craftsmen limitations, the upside of a 400-mph bomber with the best survivability rate of the war delivering relatively small loads but at pinpoint accuracy makes this discussion worth have. A similar number of Lancasters were produced, but did they do more to defeat Hitler?

>>An example of the tremendous accuracy achieved by Mosquitos can be shown by comparing figures for the attacks on the V-weapons sites. The average tonnage of bombs required to destroy one of these sites by B-17 Flying Fortresses was 165; for B26 Marauders it was 182 tons and for B25 Mitchells 219 tons. The average for the Mosquito was just under 40 tons! ((raf.mod.uk))<<

More Mosquitoes would mean fewer V-1's, right? (Interesting side-note on how they perfected methods of taking then down in flight before the Typhoons. More Skeeters would have meant fewer V-1s hitting London, right?)

The authoritative finality of you and several posters on this thread that seeks to demolish an opposing view rather than to engage it bodes poorly for continued re-learning of history. How are we to engage today's youth to the point that they take another look at these issues if all of them have been resolved?

This is not a settled issue and the ramifications of bomber theory of that era and procurement principles still resonate in the Pentagon.

The de Havilland Mosquito and the heavy bombers

Hi Donald,

One last try before I give up on you.

Please, as a teacher, you must understand the differences between secondary sources and primary research.

Second, stop confusing strategic bombing with tactical bombing. You talk about Mosquito bombers taking out Crossbow sites - NO MOSQUITO BOMBERS ATTACKED V-1 SITES! The aircraft were Mosquito fighter bombers, which trained for and excelled at tactical missions. More FB.VIs were built than any other variant. However, FB.VIs didn't attack strategic targets.

The Eighth Air Force did a terrible job against tactical targets - they concentrated on, and trained for, strategic objectives. Their record against tactical targets was so poor that Eisenhower took away their tactical aircraft (A-20s and B-26s) and created the Ninth Air Force to improve tactical support prior to Overlord. And the B-25s were all RAF aircraft - again, none of the tactical bombers performed long-range daylight strategic missions.

You have a point of view, an opinion, that you'd like us to recognize and accept. But your point of view is not based on a solid study of the evidence - you shouldn't be surprised that so many disagree with you. Sit down with Craven and Cate for a month and get a better, albeit secondary, understanding of the AAF's air war from 1941-45.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[FLYBOYJ]

>>

• 
  ISTHMUS

The F-35 is already obsolete
The state-of-the-art fighter jet proposed for Madison has a long history of problems
BY JEFF KELLY
SEPTEMBER 26, 2019

RSS

Expand
View attachment 622996

One of the most hated projects in Department of Defense history may find a home in Madison.
The F-35 is promoted as the next generation jet fighter. The local Truax Air Base representatives have rolled out an impressive PR campaaign to ensure the plane is based in Madison. This included a highly stylized taxpayer-funded display at the Alliant Center with glossy charts, a hat giveaway and smiling Air Force officers. Glowing puff pieces about the base have appeared in local media. All in comparison to a bare bones community event held in a north-side school organized by opposition.
The plane traffic over my neighborhood, Eken Park, can be intolerable, however, that is an emotional response. What the public deserves to know is what the plane is and who is promoting it.
The F-35 project has been troubled from the start and the future of jet planes is in doubt. Many believe the F-35 will be the last jet plane. But piloted planes retain an air of necessity in the military. A recent Rand study published by the Air Force Times reports that former pilots, over every other classification, have been promoted to positions of power, shaping debate about the future of jet planes. The current commander at Truax, Col. Erik Peterson, comes from this background.
The chief of staff of the Air Force, Gen. David Goldfein, believes that the future of fighting adversaries is cyber warfare. This, along with missile technology and drones, are what the future holds — not fighter jet planes. The romantic image of dogfighting is no longer reality.
On a macro level, the U.S. military has 800 bases in 83 different countries. The Navy has an active presence in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Our Army can defeat any smaller country in the world as evidenced by our complete devastation of the large Iraqi Army. China and Russia, often times mentioned as potential adversaries, would be more problematic because they continually develop countermeasures to systems like the F-35. Factor in the remaining threat of nuclear missiles, and the need for the F-35 seems questionable.


So why is the F-35A proposed for Madison?
As detailed by The New York Times in August, the Lockheed Martin Company looks at the F-35 as a too-big-to-fail project. It has become an endless money pit that has swallowed resources.
Many types of dysfunctions have occurred over the 20-year project: Crashes, canopy failures, helmet glow issues, tire blowouts, oxygen monitor failures, stealth features that account for half of all defects, software vulnerable to cyber attacks, and guns that miss targets. Former U.S. Sen. John McCain, a former U.S. Navy pilot, called the project "both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance." After his death, no other politician has held Lockheed accountable. Despite not meeting standards, with 13 deficiencies still unaddressed this summer, the Department of Defense has totally ignored the Nunn-McCurdy Law, which calls for projects that exceed cost estimates by 50 percent to be cancelled.
The Project on Government Oversight blasted the F-35 program, stating "With the revelation that officials made paperwork fixes to make serious deficiencies appear acceptable, it seems that much of that work is being ignored in the name of political expediency and protecting F-35 funding."
Opinion | The F-35 is already obsolete

From 2019? Read it (Yawn). Update your browser and take the Top Gun tape out of your VCR!

8 major air forces currently fly the aircraft, over 625 have been produced so far on 3 production lines, 5 other countries awaiting delivery. The F-4 was supposed to be the last manned fighter. Said the same thing about the F-15 and then the F-22.

Hmm- cost over runs. Do you know what a fixed price contract is? I'll leave it at that for now, maybe you can find some older articles about the aircraft.

 

[buffnut453]

It's highly unlikely that the F-35 will win our next war or even prevent one. The weapon that will determine the future likely has yet to be invented, though there are those who may be imagining it right now. Chances are that it will be far less expensive to produce and maintain that that Hangar Queen.

But the F-35 IS determining the future....today. It's already changing the way its operators think about operational and tactical problems. It's being used in ways that its designers never imagined simply because it's operators are continually finding new ways to exploit the advantages it provides.

If you think ANY new technology is going to be cheaper than current technology, then you haven't been paying attention to military development over the past 80 years. Maintaining a technological edge is costly and anyone who believes there's a cheap way to overcome our adversaries is kidding themselves.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Donald - I don't think you understand that some of the deficiencies (which many have been corrected since 2019) we induced by the Pentagon continually requesting additions and modifications to the program. the production program is "firm fixed price." All additional cost have to be approved by the government.

Is LMCO blameless? Absolutely not! They hired a lot of incompetent contractors and refused to say "no" for the sake of the mighty dollar, like any other large company would do. they also had a leaning curve in the initial production run, but that's to be expected.

This weapon system is a game changer and by your naive comments about the aircraft I bet you never really looked into what the aircraft can actually do or how it operates. (go back to my post, 185 "By educating them with the technical facts of how the aircraft really operated"). Instead of only reading these think tank articles, have you looked up pilot reports or actually spoken to someone who has flown the aircraft?!?

BTW - if this program is such a failure, such a waste of money, why are these guys, buying more? (BTW this piece is from 2021

Israeli air force to buy refueling aircraft, 25 more F-35 fighter jets

 

[Donald Johnson]

Hi Donald,

One last try before I give up on you.

Please, as a teacher, you must understand the differences between secondary sources and primary research.

Second, stop confusing strategic bombing with tactical bombing. You talk about Mosquito bombers taking out Crossbow sites - NO MOSQUITO BOMBERS ATTACKED V-1 SITES! The aircraft were Mosquito fighter bombers, which trained for and excelled at tactical missions. More FB.VIs were built than any other variant. However, FB.VIs didn't attack strategic targets.

The Eighth Air Force did a terrible job against tactical targets - they concentrated on, and trained for, strategic objectives. Their record against tactical targets was so poor that Eisenhower took away their tactical aircraft (A-20s and B-26s) and created the Ninth Air Force to improve tactical support prior to Overlord. And the B-25s were all RAF aircraft - again, none of the tactical bombers performed long-range daylight strategic missions.

You have a point of view, an opinion, that you'd like us to recognize and accept. But your point of view is not based on a solid study of the evidence - you shouldn't be surprised that so many disagree with you. Sit down with Craven and Cate for a month and get a better, albeit secondary, understanding of the AAF's air war from 1941-45.

Cheers,



Dana

I am not motivated to seek acceptance from those I know to have far more intimate knowledge with the nuts and bolts of this than me. Steeped as I am with Caidin and Jablonski, I've not seen this criticism of the 8th Air Force Command expressed so directly. It would also be a great research topic.

I've read and respected the effort you've made in all of your posts in critical detail. I only assert that you're too dismissive of mine; that you cede no part of any arguments, some of which I believe to still be valid.

I have a book here, "Lancaster" by Walter Thompson DFC that asserts Fighter Command did far too little to assist Bomber command with its night missions:

>>Finally, in response to the pressure upon Bomber Command, the Air Staff allocated a single squadron of Beaufighter IV's to the task of engaging German night fighters over their own territory. Not the far superior Mosquitoes, not an aircraft equipped with the latest night fighter radar...The best night fighters, several excellent Mosquito squadrons were in existence, but they must be kept for the defence of Britain.<<

Again, my basic point is that the knowledge and capability existed to double Mosquito squadrons existed sooner, it just was not placed on high enough priority even with Elliott Roosevelt's chumminess with Hap Arnold and FDR.

 

[GrauGeist]

Donald, I have studied history/Military history for a half century.

I would be interested to hear from you, at which point in time that civilians were not caught in the crossfire of combatants.
The layter half of the 20th century was the first time in human history where careful deliberation was made to ensure minimal collateral damage during an operation.
Reaching back through the centuries, we can find countless examples where civilians were the specific target - cities laid to seige, fleeing civilians cut down by cavalry and charioteers, well water spiked with corpses, catapulting plague victims over fortress walls, burning crops, shelling cities, fire-bombing cities by night from silenced airships and so on and so on.

What is your agenda, actually?
You do not seem to be interested in the facts, figures and timelines offered by memebers who are far better qualified than I, who have been patient and gone to great lengths to explain WHY the Mosquito was not the strategic bomber of choice.

Students need to have a wealth of information that spans the spectrum of the issue in order to use critical thinking to draw a conclusion.
Telling them what to think does no good.

 

[Donald Johnson]

Donald - I don't think you understand that some of the deficiencies (which many have been corrected since 2019) we induced by the Pentagon continually requesting additions and modifications to the program. the production program is "firm fixed price." All additional cost have to be approved by the government.

Is LMCO blameless? Absolutely not! They hired a lot of incompetent contractors and refused to say "no" for the sake of the mighty dollar, like any other large company would do. they also had a leaning curve in the initial production run, but that's to be expected.

This weapon system is a game changer and by your naive comments about the aircraft I bet you never really looked into what the aircraft can actually do or how it operates. (go back to my post, 185 "By educating them with the technical facts of how the aircraft really operated"). Instead of only reading these think tank articles, have you looked up pilot reports or actually spoken to someone who has flown the aircraft?!?

BTW - if this program is such a failure, such a waste of money, why are these guys, buying more? (BTW this piece is from 2021

Israeli air force to buy refueling aircraft, 25 more F-35 fighter jets

I'm not saying that we should stop the program, but drastically dial back on future orders, perhaps re-evaluating the upgraded F-16 for part of its intended role. If other countries think the stealth technology still works, fine, but I also have a problem with Israel having these partly because we're actually doing the funding, partly because this is the most likely flash point for WW3 and Bibi is mismanaging it.

But instead of continually trying to hijack my Mosquito thread with this sidebar, why not assert it's benefits in your own thread starter? I'll be there if you do.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I am not motivated to seek acceptance from those I know to have far more intimate knowledge with the nuts and bolts of this than me.

My cousin Ray had a saying "I give you books, you eat the covers."

Did you ever think you can learn something?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not saying that we should stop the program, but drastically dial back on future orders, perhaps re-evaluating the upgraded F-16 for part of its intended role. If other countries think the stealth technology still works, fine, but I also have a problem with Israel having these partly because we're actually doing the funding, partly because this is the most likely flash point for WW3 and Bibi is mismanaging it.

That option is already available and it's been on the table for a long time. An upgraded F-16 can't fulfill the same role. Again LEARN what the F-35 does! It's not only about flying fast, stealth and dropping bombs!!!

But instead of continually trying to hijack my Mosquito thread with this sidebar, why not assert it's benefits in your own thread starter? I'll be there if you do.

Well stop bringing up the F-35, there's several threads about the F-35 on this forum.