now, i realise that in our most recent conflicts involving air power seem to involve high to medium level ground attacks but i would presume that in any conflict with a more modern and effective air defence,low level attacks to avoid detection and destruction would again be the most effective....
my question is,if the above is true,why our new fighter aircraft and indeed new attack aircraft dont seem to be optimised for this attack mode?
surely fixed,large area winged aircraft such as the f35 and f22/typhoon etc would give their pilots a very uncomfortable and rough ride in comparison to the tornado or f111 when attacking at low level?..(reducing occupant endurance?)
conversly,in defence,a swing wing interceptor such as an f3 tornado(the fastest current fighter at sea level,i understand) would presumably be a effective interceptor of low level,high speed threats in its fully swept wing pursuit mode?
so,question 2, why arent we building swing wings any more,when they seem to be ideal for future conflicts esp as the weapon systems and high speed seem to be the assets most likely to be valuable in a modern war with a modern enemy?
my question is,if the above is true,why our new fighter aircraft and indeed new attack aircraft dont seem to be optimised for this attack mode?
surely fixed,large area winged aircraft such as the f35 and f22/typhoon etc would give their pilots a very uncomfortable and rough ride in comparison to the tornado or f111 when attacking at low level?..(reducing occupant endurance?)
conversly,in defence,a swing wing interceptor such as an f3 tornado(the fastest current fighter at sea level,i understand) would presumably be a effective interceptor of low level,high speed threats in its fully swept wing pursuit mode?
so,question 2, why arent we building swing wings any more,when they seem to be ideal for future conflicts esp as the weapon systems and high speed seem to be the assets most likely to be valuable in a modern war with a modern enemy?
Last edited: