Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Oh yeah, I think that was the bit that set me in an arguing mood in the first place, then I forgot all about it by the time I came to my response

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


They are going to innovate with that one specific task, but the market place determines which goods consumers really want

No it doesn't. It determines what people can afford.

WHAT?!?!

I don't know what capitalism is like in Sweden, but yes the market place does determine which goods people want. And yes, what it is willing to pay for them. But just because someone makes something doesn't mean people are going to buy it. Those that aren't wanted eventually stop being produced. This is why you have something called 'Sales'.

KTG17 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


They are going to innovate with that one specific task, but the market place determines which goods consumers really want

No it doesn't. It determines what people can afford.

WHAT?!?!

I don't know what capitalism is like in Sweden, but yes the market place does determine which goods people want.

No, it doesn't. Or, well, in a very shallow way it does I suppose. The market can give you an indication of what people are willing to pay for, but that doesn't actually give you a picture of what people want, only what they want that is also within their means. As an extreme example, people being unable to buy food does not mean there is not a demand for food, it means that providing food to people at that price level is not profitable. The demand is there, but we'd never know it from the market, because the market is only one indicator of demand, not the absolute arbiter of what people want or not.

You really shouldn't be building a moral system based on capitalism, because capitalism is inherently amoral.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is an interesting article about this topic...
When replacing the failed F-35, the U.S. should focus on building large numbers of a reliable, lightweight fighter design.

It is a good article, and it does a good job of fleshing out the argument for a plane designed with considerations other than chasing the absolute bleeding edge of capability. However, it is really a sales pitch, and because it's a sales pitch which starts with one false argument to hide it's own sales pitch.

Yeah it kind of lost me when it mentions we don't need stealth in a superiority fighter. Granted I know technology changes and there may be a point when stealth no longer has the advantages it currently has, but after reading a conversation with an Australian pilot who had practiced against the F-22, he said something to the effect that it was the worst plane to try and dog fight because he couldn't get a radar lock on. Even when he could visually see it, the radar couldn't. That's pretty impressive. It was right there and then I felt all the hassle around cost and maintenance is worth it. If we just had more of them.

Gates has to be one of the most short-sighted defense secretaries we've ever had.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


They are going to innovate with that one specific task, but the market place determines which goods consumers really want

No it doesn't. It determines what people can afford.

WHAT?!?!

I don't know what capitalism is like in Sweden, but yes the market place does determine which goods people want.

No, it doesn't. Or, well, in a very shallow way it does I suppose. The market can give you an indication of what people are willing to pay for, but that doesn't actually give you a picture of what people want, only what they want that is also within their means. As an extreme example, people being unable to buy food does not mean there is not a demand for food, it means that providing food to people at that price level is not profitable. The demand is there, but we'd never know it from the market, because the market is only one indicator of demand, not the absolute arbiter of what people want or not.

You really shouldn't be building a moral system based on capitalism, because capitalism is inherently amoral.

If I produce an item, that no one wants, no one is going to buy it. That itself allows the market to remove unwanted goods. In Communism, there was a ton of waste as factories produced too many goods that no one wanted or became obsolete, but were stuck to the 5 year plan set by the higher powers. Allowing me to create a good and offering to the market, will determine whether the market has any demand for that good. The level of demand sets the price. Those unwanted goods get flushed out and new ones enter it.

BTW I would rather be in a capitalist society than any other. I've been to 32 countries too, so I have seen a few systems.

Manned fighters are so 20th century.

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

I don't think drones are ready to replace manned fighters yet.

Besides, what do you do when you can't communicate with the drone? I think there is always going to be the need to have a vehicle with a human in it.

KTG17 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

I don't think drones are ready to replace manned fighters yet.

Besides, what do you do when you can't communicate with the drone? I think there is always going to be the need to have a vehicle with a human in it.

AI is the next step. I hear Cyberdine Systems is working with DARPA on it right now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

We're a sixth of the way in to the 21st century and no-one has an unmanned fighter even at the proposal stage, so it appears manned fighters will make it a long way in to this century as well.

I guess unmannee fighters will prob happen sometime, there's still a way to go.

Any plane thats big enough to launch an AA missile or drop a guided bomb on an airfield, is a fighter. They don't have to be 40 G highway to the danger zone planes, just a platform to launch missiles (or maybe railguns/ lasers in the future). A long time ago one of the parameters on of my cohorts were working on were airborne lasers designed to track and hit up to 200 airborne threats traveling under mach 7. That was an embarrassingly long time ago.

The problem with unmanned fighters (or bombers for that matter) is we (the US at least) require a human in the loop to pull a trigger. Against the types of threats the pairing of F22 and F35 are designed to face, the security of a link from drone (fighter or bomber) back to 'pilot' is not assured. The tech is getting there for autonomous systems, BUT we do not allow an autonomous system to decide to kill or not kill.

Maybe, someday in the future, that changes. Until it does we need pilots, and in a cyber contested air battle, we cant risk the pilot and the 'link' to his aircraft becoming broken, hence the pilot needs to be on the platform.

We do have manned/unmanned pairing even now, and it seems to work well, a manned platform controls an unmanned platform usually with a dedicated data link between the two.

It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

You're probably thinking of the Super Tacanos we're buying for the Afghans. They're meant to replace some very old Russian attack copters the Afghans current use. The Tacanos have already been flown in combat by the Afghans (last year if I remember correctly).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it was never the $20 tent being targeted, it was the gak bag inside it, and I don't think we dropped any $100k bombs to do so.

 CptJake wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

You're probably thinking of the Super Tacanos we're buying for the Afghans. They're meant to replace some very old Russian attack copters the Afghans current use. The Tacanos have already been flown in combat by the Afghans (last year if I remember correctly).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it was never the $20 tent being targeted, it was the gak bag inside it, and I don't think we dropped any $100k bombs to do so.

Ah yes, thank you, I was probably looking at that. At 9 to 14 million US $ per plane and just around 500$ per operational hour (at least according to wikipedia, I know) it seems like it's not the worst idea for any army to have cheap planes like that for those missions where you don't need full stealth laser guided mach 3 awesomeness....

In 2008, the U.S. Navy began testing the Super Tucano at the behest of the U.S. Special Operations Command for its potential use to support special warfare operations,[78] giving it the official U.S. designation A-29B.[79]
In 2009, the Super Tucano was offered in a U.S. Air Force competition for 100 counterinsurgency aircraft.[80] On 12 April 2010, Brazil signed a defensive pact that opened negotiations for the acquisition of 200 Super Tucanos by the U.S.[81] On 16 November 2011, the AT-6 was excluded from the LAS Program, effectively selecting the Super Tucano. According to GAO: "the Air Force concluded that HBDC had not adequately corrected deficiencies in its proposal... that multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC’s proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk". Hawker Beechcraft's protest against its exclusion was dismissed.[82][83] However, the contract award was disputed and a stop-work was issued in January 2012.[84]

So the USAF actually looked at them, too, apparently also liked them but then didn't end up actually getting any...

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

Take a skyraider, fit the controls to a drone operator and there you go. Or old school, just upgrade the avionics and there you go. A reliable proven platform with massive load bearing capability, that can loiter over the battle field for hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

 CptJake wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

You're probably thinking of the Super Tacanos we're buying for the Afghans. They're meant to replace some very old Russian attack copters the Afghans current use. The Tacanos have already been flown in combat by the Afghans (last year if I remember correctly).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it was never the $20 tent being targeted, it was the gak bag inside it, and I don't think we dropped any $100k bombs to do so.

Standard munition used in a strike is a Hellfire. It costs about 100K per missile.

I've seen them used to destroy HME (home made explosive) facilities, strikes to kill a single guy, or even strikes to kill 10 guys (that was a fun one). They're an incredibly accurate weapon, and their collateral damage ring is pretty small. The price tag may seem large, but the precision strike capability doesn't come cheap. I mean sure, we could always go back to Vietnam era carpet bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc...

 Vaktathi wrote:
Then of course P320 they ended up going with has far less data and tested durability & experience of the Glock. The P320 probably is a perfectly fine pistol, but the apparent testing standards given the goals were...strange.

Hey, every organisation where someone wants something specific (like his favorite handgun, or the provider that gives kickbacks, or just not that provider) knows how to set up proqurement requirements etc so that the stuff they want is the only stuff that fills those criteria. Someone absolutely wanted a SIG and by God that's what was selected!

KTG17 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

I don't think drones are ready to replace manned fighters yet.

Besides, what do you do when you can't communicate with the drone? I think there is always going to be the need to have a vehicle with a human in it.

The same thing you do when you can't communicate with the pilot.



Drop the bomb.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

Take a skyraider, fit the controls to a drone operator and there you go. Or old school, just upgrade the avionics and there you go. A reliable proven platform with massive load bearing capability, that can loiter over the battle field for hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

Exactly the kind of plane I had in mind, yes. If I remember correctly, and the military guys might correct me, even the A-10 Thunderbolt is not used when there's risk of enemy interceptors/fighters in the area, right? And protection against SAMs and other AA weapons could probably tacked onto some "old" concept like a Skyraider just as well as on a Thunderbolt, I presume.

KTG17 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

I don't think drones are ready to replace manned fighters yet.

Besides, what do you do when you can't communicate with the drone? I think there is always going to be the need to have a vehicle with a human in it.

This.

We tend to lose a number of drones because we lose comm's with them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/26/predator-drone-crashed-in-new-mexico-after-losing-communications-link/?utm_term=.e28ea568a1e8

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

djones520 wrote:Standard munition used in a strike is a Hellfire. It costs about 100K per missile.

I've seen them used to destroy HME (home made explosive) facilities, strikes to kill a single guy, or even strikes to kill 10 guys (that was a fun one). They're an incredibly accurate weapon, and their collateral damage ring is pretty small. The price tag may seem large, but the precision strike capability doesn't come cheap. I mean sure, we could always go back to Vietnam era carpet bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc...

Not that the Hellfire is an example of government waste per se, but this seems like a bit of false dilemma - perhaps there is some middle ground between dropping $100k of ordnance to kill a single person or materiel, and carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As a side note, I saw something interesting about a week ago - insurgents killed in a car that didn't have a typical collateral-damage-inflicting blast pattern - the windows weren't even blown out, but the top of the car looked like someone had dropped an anvil on it. Supposition is that it was a AGM like the Hellfire but without a warhead.

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Because the Spitfire exists

But really it was due to the Mustang being a bit late to the party (1944 I think) whereas the workhorses throughout, had been the bf109, fw 190, the aforementioned spitfire and the hurricane, Vought F4U corsair played a big role before the hellcat was introduced in the Pacific (another 1944 plane [the Hellcat not the Corsair]).

That's before we get onto the fun stuff like bombers and torpedo planes

Russian Aviation isn't my strong suit, so if someone could fill in there, I'm sure there's a T-34 equivalent.

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation

Depends on how you define 'most important' and 'fighter'

Also depends on the theater and the time frame you are looking at. In the Pacific, the Corsair could probably take that title. There's also the P38, the Me 209 and the Spitfire.

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

djones520 wrote:Standard munition used in a strike is a Hellfire. It costs about 100K per missile.

I've seen them used to destroy HME (home made explosive) facilities, strikes to kill a single guy, or even strikes to kill 10 guys (that was a fun one). They're an incredibly accurate weapon, and their collateral damage ring is pretty small. The price tag may seem large, but the precision strike capability doesn't come cheap. I mean sure, we could always go back to Vietnam era carpet bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc...

Not that the Hellfire is an example of government waste per se, but this seems like a bit of false dilemma - perhaps there is some middle ground between dropping $100k of ordnance to kill a single person or materiel, and carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As a side note, I saw something interesting about a week ago - insurgents killed in a car that didn't have a typical collateral-damage-inflicting blast pattern - the windows weren't even blown out, but the top of the car looked like someone had dropped an anvil on it. Supposition is that it was a AGM like the Hellfire but without a warhead.

I've seen some weird things happen when a Hellfire hits. A truck full of insurgents was struck, the missile nailed the engine block. All 8 guys inside the truck got out, without a scratch. At the same time, I've seen a guy get hit with one, and thrown 30 feet into the air, doing cartwheels.

In terms of a middle ground though the Hellfire is as good as it gets, right now. I'm sure they're in the works for cheaper things, but as I said, precision is expensive. There are plenty of cheaper dummy bombs out there, but once you put the guidance system on them, then factor in that only a handful of air frames can carry them, counter to the the relative universality of the Hellfire... We use it as our primary strike munition for a reason. It's the best tool.

As for the Mustang, it was the most imporant because it was the best escort fighter in the allied fleet. It's combat range was 300 miles longer then the Spitfires, meaning it could escort the strategic bombers much further into Europe then its British counterpart. While pound for pound, the Spitfire might have been a better air to air fighter, it's smaller fuel tank kept it shackled to the British Isles.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Because the Spitfire exists

But really it was due to the Mustang being a bit late to the party (1944 I think) whereas the workhorses throughout, had been the bf109, fw 190, the aforementioned spitfire and the hurricane, Vought F4U corsair played a big role before the hellcat was introduced in the Pacific (another 1944 plane).

That's before we get onto the fun stuff like bombers and torpedo planes

Most important fighter is arguable. The most important bomber was the B-29, hands down. Indeed it was the most important bomber in all of history, and remains so.

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

If we're only talking the Pacific theater, then it's probably true. The P-51 (+alphabet variants) was the common and most dominant type of fighter plane.

European, well it didn't really show up in significant numbers until the war was half over. No credit for third man in I'm afraid!

edit: fixed brain fart

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Because the Spitfire exists

But really it was due to the Mustang being a bit late to the party (1944 I think) whereas the workhorses throughout, had been the bf109, fw 190, the aforementioned spitfire and the hurricane, Vought F4U corsair played a big role before the hellcat was introduced in the Pacific (another 1944 plane).

That's before we get onto the fun stuff like bombers and torpedo planes

Most important fighter is arguable. The most important bomber was the B-29, hands down. Indeed it was the most important bomber in all of history, and remains so.

The B-25 Would have words with that

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

djones520 wrote:Standard munition used in a strike is a Hellfire. It costs about 100K per missile.

I've seen them used to destroy HME (home made explosive) facilities, strikes to kill a single guy, or even strikes to kill 10 guys (that was a fun one). They're an incredibly accurate weapon, and their collateral damage ring is pretty small. The price tag may seem large, but the precision strike capability doesn't come cheap. I mean sure, we could always go back to Vietnam era carpet bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc...

Not that the Hellfire is an example of government waste per se, but this seems like a bit of false dilemma - perhaps there is some middle ground between dropping $100k of ordnance to kill a single person or materiel, and carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As a side note, I saw something interesting about a week ago - insurgents killed in a car that didn't have a typical collateral-damage-inflicting blast pattern - the windows weren't even blown out, but the top of the car looked like someone had dropped an anvil on it. Supposition is that it was a AGM like the Hellfire but without a warhead.

I've seen some weird things happen when a Hellfire hits. A truck full of insurgents was struck, the missile nailed the engine block. All 8 guys inside the truck got out, without a scratch. At the same time, I've seen a guy get hit with one, and thrown 30 feet into the air, doing cartwheels.

In terms of a middle ground though the Hellfire is as good as it gets, right now. I'm sure they're in the works for cheaper things, but as I said, precision is expensive. There are plenty of cheaper dummy bombs out there, but once you put the guidance system on them, then factor in that only a handful of air frames can carry them, counter to the the relative universality of the Hellfire... We use it as our primary strike munition for a reason. It's the best tool.

How is it compared to a JDAM for the same target?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Because the Spitfire exists

But really it was due to the Mustang being a bit late to the party (1944 I think) whereas the workhorses throughout, had been the bf109, fw 190, the aforementioned spitfire and the hurricane, Vought F4U corsair played a big role before the hellcat was introduced in the Pacific (another 1944 plane).

That's before we get onto the fun stuff like bombers and torpedo planes

Most important fighter is arguable. The most important bomber was the B-29, hands down. Indeed it was the most important bomber in all of history, and remains so.

Aye, but then again the Lancaster bomber exists and if I've learnt anything off the US it's that the more ordnance a bomber can carry the better (or toilets, those are good too )

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

djones520 wrote:Standard munition used in a strike is a Hellfire. It costs about 100K per missile.

I've seen them used to destroy HME (home made explosive) facilities, strikes to kill a single guy, or even strikes to kill 10 guys (that was a fun one). They're an incredibly accurate weapon, and their collateral damage ring is pretty small. The price tag may seem large, but the precision strike capability doesn't come cheap. I mean sure, we could always go back to Vietnam era carpet bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc...

Not that the Hellfire is an example of government waste per se, but this seems like a bit of false dilemma - perhaps there is some middle ground between dropping $100k of ordnance to kill a single person or materiel, and carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As a side note, I saw something interesting about a week ago - insurgents killed in a car that didn't have a typical collateral-damage-inflicting blast pattern - the windows weren't even blown out, but the top of the car looked like someone had dropped an anvil on it. Supposition is that it was a AGM like the Hellfire but without a warhead.

I've seen some weird things happen when a Hellfire hits. A truck full of insurgents was struck, the missile nailed the engine block. All 8 guys inside the truck got out, without a scratch. At the same time, I've seen a guy get hit with one, and thrown 30 feet into the air, doing cartwheels.

In terms of a middle ground though the Hellfire is as good as it gets, right now. I'm sure they're in the works for cheaper things, but as I said, precision is expensive. There are plenty of cheaper dummy bombs out there, but once you put the guidance system on them, then factor in that only a handful of air frames can carry them, counter to the the relative universality of the Hellfire... We use it as our primary strike munition for a reason. It's the best tool.

How is it compared to a JDAM for the same target?

Well, the biggest drawback of the JDAM is that it can only be carried by manned fix winged aircraft. Those are MUCH more expensive to operate, and are limited to just Air Force and Navy/Marine capabilities. The Hellfire can be used by fixed winged aircraft, UAS, and Helo's. So that means MANY more aircraft can use them, placing much less strain on the AF/Navy to deliver the munitions.

If we were talking a more strategic level of warfare, the JDAM will win the argument. It's better at busting tanks/bunkers/etc... But the style of warfare we're fighting right now, aka chopping heads off, the Hellfire is king.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Because the Spitfire exists

But really it was due to the Mustang being a bit late to the party (1944 I think) whereas the workhorses throughout, had been the bf109, fw 190, the aforementioned spitfire and the hurricane, Vought F4U corsair played a big role before the hellcat was introduced in the Pacific (another 1944 plane).

That's before we get onto the fun stuff like bombers and torpedo planes

Most important fighter is arguable. The most important bomber was the B-29, hands down. Indeed it was the most important bomber in all of history, and remains so.

The B-25 Would have words with that

Japan didn't surrender after a B-25 strike. . .