Mission Capable A2G Raptors?

Canada_EH, your concept of a "God's eye view" UAV was I thought already being used in Iraq and AfG including the use of Hellfire equiped Predator's acting as ch1466's "snipers"? (I agree he should tone down the "Iraqi pig's" language. It's generalizing a complex problem and by unintended inference, shift's some blame from US policy and tactical mistakes that exacerbated already existing social tensions)

On the "F" v's "A" argument, I have never accepted the story that underpins the multi role aircraft justification. I remember reading an argument put forward about 20+ yrs ago by Bill Gunston that it's a simple matter of aerodynamics and physics. He correctly pointed out that an ideal attack fighter would look something like an F/A-18 with the wings cut off and the leading edge strakes enlarged and running most of the fuselage length. An ideal fighter will have a greater span and a lower wing loading. This was partly achievable with variable geometry wings a la Tornado &
F-111, but is still a compromise.

Given that servicing and maintenance is for the most part not to do with the airframe and mostly with the systems and subsystems, It should be possible to design 2 role optimised fuselages that share mostly identical components. For example you dont need warehouses full of wing flaps, access panels or wing spars (and these "dumb", "non digital" components are the cheapest parts of modern aircraft anyway) these are not what needs all the complex and expensive servicing. You DO need warehouses and maintenance shops for engines, radars, weapon and FCS processor modules etc. It is these items that today can be made common or identical to 2 different aircraft.

Furthermore if the argument is that we can no longer afford 2 distinct aircraft side by side because of running costs, how does that argument hold any weight when modern systems are orders of magnitude more reliable and less in need of servicing & equipment than their predecessors?
For example look at the servicing needs of the F-22 v's the F-15. Or the amount of equipment needed to be taken in a forward deployment. Where talking 1/2 or less. THAT is where the money is, NOT the sheet metal all that gear is bolted too.

If the USAF had had any brains they would have designed a JSFesque strike/attack optimised fuselage based on the F-22 with a different wing that shared ALL the components possible from the F-22 including the radar, FCS etc, not just a few minor systems and a common engine core "family". The irony is that this approach would have resulted in substantial production savings that could have meant more airframes. And possibly less resistance to giving the "F" only version the A2G capability and an "A" version vice a versa.

Seems nobody in the industry wants to think outside this particular box.

LEE.