so these are just super expensive ground attack missile launchers?
wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy more long range ground launched missiles?
we're not going to see air to air combat anymore are we?
so these are just super expensive ground attack missile launchers?
yeah.
This is by far the most moronic thread on this board right now
I dunno man; there's some pretty bad threads
Then link three.
There's an Indian ICBM shill thread up that is much worse
Look you stupid homosexual, if you do it that way lockheed doesn't get a cut and can't justify more taxpayer spending for even better flying ground attack missile launchers. Don't you support the MIC? what kind of American are you?
higher and faster = missile go farther
I don't even think they're getting the ones with better radar. It's probably so they can keep them airworthy by importing parts from all over the word since f16 was such a prevalent platform
>so these are just super expensive ground attack missile launchers?
No, they are recon, targeting and attack build into a single package that can also defend itself from fighters and SAMs.
>wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy more long range ground launched missiles?
To strike a single static target? Yes.
To find mobile targets or provide CAS? No.
To take down enemy planes? lol no.
>we're not going to see air to air combat anymore are we?
We have seen it in Ukraine, we also saw it in Iraq, Vietnam and Korea. We see it every time the war isn't against a 3rd world shithole.
You also forgot to include that they can't be destroyed by cheap drones, which morons like OP love to rave about making everything obsolete
>You also forgot to include that they can't be destroyed by cheap drones
yes they can lol
on the ground.
f-16s are obsolete
>What do mean military vehicles can blow up?
They're not even that expensive, probably one of the most cost effective attack jets ever made.
Especially since they are pretty easy to convert to wild weasel as well.
>we're not going to see air to air combat anymore are we?
Only poor people use it in the a2a role. It's a self escorting ground attack aircraft.
they're just replacements for the attrition of Ukrainian air force. possibly with a few more weapons that can be more easily used.
A multirole aircraft is a missile with a reusable first stage.
third most moronic thread i've seen.
What takes them so fricking long to deliver them to Ukraine?
>F-16
>expensive
In some ways OP is not TOTALLY wrong.
Today planes mainly serve the purpose of missile transportation to a location.
Historically the advantages of a plane over a missile where that it could drop unguided munitions and that it could find it's own targets as well as it had far more range than a missile.
Today things have changed.
The fog of war is nearly gone with live HD satellite feeds of everything moving on the battlefield so having to send a plane to find it's own targets is no longer necessary.
Also unguided bombs are no longer common due to increased AA capabilities.
So a plane against a ship uses missiles, against planes uses missiles, against ground target again missiles.
The plane itself is almost like a reusable a missile with wings and a pilot.
So one could consider, why do we need the plane at all?
Why not just make missiles with longer range? After all if the plane itself just moves the missile closer to target that could be done by an extra booster.
Overall it's not so stupid of a concept.
Why send in a plane with air to air missiles, which is really expensive, dangerous for the pilot and could potentially cost a plane when I could just send the same anti air missiles to the same target from base using a booster?
I don't really have a good answer to it.
Mainly I think the plane being able to launch from altitude and from closer to target allows for using much smaller missiles that are harder to intercept and a plane can carry multiple.
However a drone could do the same so...
Anyway the same is true for ships nowadays. They mainly missile transport too with AA to defend themselves.