I dont see how fleet of Typhoon and F35 could in anyway be seen in the seen in the same hi-lo mix that mff was meant to be i would suggest both aircraft are high value assets.
Not sure why hawk 200 would be seen as such a poor asset am i missing something?
Yep so let’s see some history here.
The HI & LO mix was an idea back then (around the 1970’s). It’s silly now to say one’s low and one’s HI. The HI was meant for a very capable aircraft that costed more than $70-90m. HI was supposed to protect the skies (which is why it’s more capable). It was when the F-15 Eagle was in service and when the F-16 was into production. The LO was an aircraft that costed less than -$80m. It was to protect the ground troops and still be capable performing a strike and Air roles. Which was technically the F-16.
This “Lo” fighter in the mix would also be designed for a different purpose. This attack fighter would sacrifice all-out performance in favor of simplicity and low cost. Rather than air superiority, its primary mission would be ground attack carrying a variety of bombs and air-to-surface missiles. Air-to-air missiles would only be carried as a secondary armament for self-defense. The “Lo” fighter would instead depend on its “Hi” counterpart for escort and defense against any enemy fighter threat. The cost of the “Lo” fighter would be kept down by designing a much smaller plane with reduced range, a lower top speed, a less powerful radar, and simpler avionics.
It’s still around today. For example when the future F-35C and F-35A comes to service, the F-35 will be significantly a sidekick to the F-22 and F/A-18E/F. The F-35 will remain focused on the A2G role while the F-22 and Super Hornet will focus on being A2A fighters (or wisely specific defending the skies/carriers). But they will be performing A2G missions for the “HI” too if it’s required.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]218924[/ATTACH]
Sign In
