It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yeah, and if anybody's ever played Ace Combat, they'll know that giant planes amount to massive bulls-eyes with lots of itty-bitty bulls-eyes all over them that a fighter pilot can dissect and pick apart like a high school bio project.
Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by AFX237
Depends on how you interpet the question. I think if the OP makes it more relavante to the Aviation subject its fine to stay here. But on the subject things are getting smaller in avionics and warheads and getting more power out of a smaller engine. So if the question is are we going to see giant planes all over I'd say no. The use for them is very limited to large cargo that can't be broken down and large amounts of people transport like the 380. The age of giantism is fading.
That's true. Capability was what I was talking about, but payload will always be something to consider.
Originally posted by jensy
Thats fair enough, and indeed an F-15, or for that matter 16 could take out a high priority bunker, but to take out a city, 'say' the size of Tehran would require a far larger craft with lots of more simple munitions.
Originally posted by Reverie Planetarian
I wonder what costs less: a fleet of strike fighters or a single modern bomber with all the trimmings?