Originally Posted by NFCstang

We don't. The F-22 is both a fighter/interceptor and a bomber. We're getting rid of the F-15/F-16s in lieu of the F-22 and the a-10 has been on the chopping block forever. The U-2 is on it's way out and the only reason the AF has the B-1, B-2 and B-52 is that we have a strategic bombing mission whereas the Navy doesn't. It's all cool to be able to drop 1 or 2 2000lb bombs on a mission but I'd rather drop 30 or so from one plane. Besides the AF has been using the F-15/F-16 for both air and ground attack (Strike Eagle anyone?)for years. We need numerous airframes to do the numerous mission.

When the Army wants an Airborne division somewhere RIGHT NOW they don't call the Navy, they call the AF. Why? Because we have the ability to deploy a large scale movement in a short time, vice loading shit on a ship and waiting. The Navy doesn't have or need massive air mobility capability

BTW...How do you differenciate between a fighter/interceptor and an air superiority fighter? Answer...there isn't. It's just a terminology difference. Both are used in the denial of airspace to the enemy.

Besides the AF and Navy can never agree again on an airframe. Witness the F-4 and F-111.

And there has never been an F-15 lost in air to air combat dating back to the beginning