In reference to this and subsequent other related posts, the only real "benefit" I see in this is buying cheap seats for pilots: according to Airforce SOCOM commander, $10k per hour. A bargain I guess compared to $68k for the F22, $39k for the F35, $16k for the F-16 and our three major bombers range from $52k to $69k. For comparison the Navy & MC F/A-18 is $10.5k and btw, the Airforce A-10 is only $6k.

However, they better have lots of that kool-ade they're drinking saved up for the for the pilots cause that's a mission that will go to hell in a heartbeat. Armor capabilities not really defined so probably 'tolerant' of light small arms, no ejection seat capability nor crash attenuation noted, and no low-signature attributes; it should be understood that this not a high-intensity environment aircraft, not medium-intensity, nor even a sustained low intensity environment; this is designed for a no-intensity, low-level quick shoot and scoot mission. The airforce brass is optimistically selling this as a "permissive environment aircraft for use around the FEBA" (forward edge of the battle area). Well now they're talking conventional arms battlefield where the term "permissive" to blue-suiters relates to opposing aircraft . . . but when you add conventional opfor ground components things quickly revert to high intensity. There's no way to make any aircraft totally immune to modern air defense systems. I would like to see the requirements statement as defined for this system's contract award as there is a sh-tpot load of gaps in all the announcement hype.

Rocky is too modest about his experiences but he can tell you what massed fires from conventional 'obsolete' auto-cannons can do to an airplane, even one with all the bells and whistles.

Last edited by Offshoreman; 08/04/22.

AKA The P-Man smile

If you cherish your memories with kids, be a good role model . . . . so the RIGHT memories of you mean something to them.