Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Cruise missiles do a lousy job of battlefield support and aren't great in a moving battlefield.
they are terrific for static targets like bridges, airfields and buildings.
But the concept of bomb stuff from an aircraft is that you have eyes on targic in a moving field. you can use a plan to bomb enemy emplacements and take out troop formations, or use medium range harms to take out mobile sam sites, or take out armor columns or logistics columns.
Cruise missiles don't do that they are guided to a point on a map not a target.
The F-35 can fly in low, it can evade or ignore sam sites and the plane can come in on close air support.
If I took 10 F-35's for example and went into a heavily defended area, vs 10 F-18 going into the same type of area. Chances are I would lose far more F-18's, or super hornets or Euro-fighters then I would a F-35 or other low observable platform.
|
Clearly you're more knowledgeable on this topic than me, but aren't radar Sam sites and what not very susceptible to radar targeting missiles? Also I thought the battle plan of NATO is to take out Sam sites with b2's or f117's then send in the convention aircraft once the battlefield has been cleared of them. This is the case in Libya, Iraq, Kosovo etc no?