/k/ can you explain to me why we still need fighter jets. Can

>>33046575
>Can we not use satellites and ground launched weaponry to do everything they do, for less money and fewer casualties?
No.

>>33046575
Cost efficiency

>>33046575
First off, what >>33046642 said. You seriously underestimate how ridicously expensive it would be to replace every role filled by airplanes with satellites.

On top of that, there is also the military-industrial complex to feed.

>>33046633
FPBP.

>>33046575

Too expensive; the costs of resupplying combat satellites would be prohibitive, and they don't have the response times required to do the work of a fighter. A military satellite is for all intents and purposes a variant of drone, with all the issues that entails.

>>33046575
either u lied and this is not a serious question
or
you are brain dead

which is it?

Retards, OP isn't talking about "combat" satellites.
It's more about spotting shit from above and use ground standoff weaponry to destroy it.

Morons.

>>33047173
OP here, can confirm

>>33047200
Artillery shells take longer to fall than plane missiles take to hit

>>33047200
Mobility
Cost efficiency
Political strategizing

>>33047200
A missile launched from a plane has a much longer range than an identical missile launched from the ground.

>>33046575

There are lots of areas where relying on Tomahawk cruise missiles would produce unacceptable numbers of civilian deaths.