Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
What aren’t you understanding about this?
First of all, I’m addressing the fact that you said that the F-35 would only be more useful than the AT-6 in a WWIII event. I’m pointing out that wars of the future won’t necessarily be either WWIII or like our recent Afghanistan experience, and that there is middle ground. This has nothing to do with the duration of the conflicts so your point is once again completely… well… pointless and not at all relevant. Seriously, how does the short lived nature of those campaigns have any bearing on the topic at hand? If anything, it goes to back up and reaffirm my standpoint, because a major reason they were so short lived was that there was a technological superiority in place, a superiority that the F-35 is expected to continue to carry into the future.
An F-35 in the future will be called on to fill the roles currently and previously filled by aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15E, and in the event a future Kosovo or Gulf War type of conflict takes place, the AT-6 would not be able to fill such roles, and to say so is laughable. So no, it can’t “probably do any mission an F-35 will ever be tasked with unless we start WWIII” as you said.
Secondly, show me where I, in any way, shape, or form, said anything implying:
>and you assume that adopting a turbo prop precludes the use of conventional jets in a conventional conflict which is preposterous
The only thing preposterous is you claiming I’ve said or implied something I clearly never even came close to saying or even addressing.
>Well newsflash: we are fighting different wars today and comparing those conflicts to contemporary ones serves no purpose
Equally preposterous is assuming that our current wars somehow represent the only type of conflict we are likely to see in the future. You don’t build weapons for the war you’re currently fighting, you build them for any potential and possible future threat. And given the proliferation of more advanced anti air defenses into the hands of more and more “rebels/insurgents/terrorists/whatever”, it’s silly to assume that the US would *only* be encountering AK wielding shepherds with zero or the most rudimentary of anti air defenses in the future.
Furthermore, I don’t get why you think I’m comparing Desert Storm, Kosovo, etc, to more recent conflicts. Again, I don’t get why this is so difficult for you to get, but I’m addressing the fact that there is a likelihood of similar future conflicts occurring, and that it is not a matter of it being either WWIII or future versions of Afghanistan, and that there is some middle ground.