|
Soviet equipment reliability... the T-72 did not have a shell ejector. You had to open the top hatch and throw the casings out. Understand there were problems with the loading mechanism and the arms of the loader. Targeting Opticals became fouled by the burning oil during Desert Storm, blinding the T-72s while the M-1s functioned perfectly. Soviet repair and resupply units had language issues, small in relation to need, poorly trained. One third of the tanks in a guards division (elite formations) could not move out during exercises.
Time and politics have not improved the issues.
Understand that the F-15 is worn out, but much of that was by design. Repair parts were non-exsistant for something like the last 5 years and the basic air frame had been out of production.
Muck obviously knows the procurement issue far better than I do. I had not seen any information on Eagle vs Mig in awhile. What concerns me is the cost. The 22 just eats chunks out of the AF budget for relatively few aircraft. It runs in the back of my mind that early in its introduction, when the Eagle was put up against smaller cheaper aircraft in numbers we could have expected in a full scale war with the Soviets (now Chinese), it lost. Numbers trumped technology. Maybe Muck can enlighten.
But the feud about providing fixed wing aircraft for ground support has been long standing between Army and Air Force and Marines and Navy. One side always wants to focus on higher and faster and the other always worries about the need for close in support.
As I understand it, the problem with the higher and faster, including the Raptor, is that the aircraft can do more than the human body can withstand. Next weapon series will be pilotless and there goes the need for an Academy, O' clubs and golf courses.
Understand the F-35 is supposed to be a joint aircraft and up for export. The question is, aside from being ugly, can it do the job on the ground?
|