Indestructible and deployed against weakly defended targets equals plenty of missions.
Typical would be those propaganda leaflet runs. Yes, you can make a lot of "bombing" runs under those conditions with great mission count stats etc. Under front line initial attack conditions the plane wouldn't survive anyway, so send it after individual trucks and convoys and stuff like that. Basically targets you'd send a cheap attack helicopter to if the chopper were in range.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with deploying a weak plane against weakly defended targets, other than the mantra there shall be only one plane that does everything for everyone perfectly etc etc.
Between attack helicopters and drones and cruise missiles its hard to find a purpose for an A10 or a F35. Generals/Admirals always prepare for the last war, and ground attack fighters are about as useful as battleships, carriers, and horse cavalry in 2015.
Its very interesting that 70 years ago sending a P-51 up against a B-17 and having the P-51 win the dogfight wouldn't be very interesting story, but in 2015 sending a daytime air superiority fighter like a F-16 up against a F-35 strike bomber and having the fighter win only surprises the people who drank the marketing kool aide that it'll do everything for everyone. The laws of physics and aerodynamics cannot, however, be fooled. Also its very unfair to send one $10M plane up against one $100M plane... they should have sent 10 F-16 up against the F-35 to be economically fair. Or launched over 200 cruise missiles at the airfield the F-35 is based at and see who "wins", who has control of the air when the enemy literally no longer has airports or planes or air force personnel.
Typical would be those propaganda leaflet runs. Yes, you can make a lot of "bombing" runs under those conditions with great mission count stats etc. Under front line initial attack conditions the plane wouldn't survive anyway, so send it after individual trucks and convoys and stuff like that. Basically targets you'd send a cheap attack helicopter to if the chopper were in range.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with deploying a weak plane against weakly defended targets, other than the mantra there shall be only one plane that does everything for everyone perfectly etc etc.
Between attack helicopters and drones and cruise missiles its hard to find a purpose for an A10 or a F35. Generals/Admirals always prepare for the last war, and ground attack fighters are about as useful as battleships, carriers, and horse cavalry in 2015.
Its very interesting that 70 years ago sending a P-51 up against a B-17 and having the P-51 win the dogfight wouldn't be very interesting story, but in 2015 sending a daytime air superiority fighter like a F-16 up against a F-35 strike bomber and having the fighter win only surprises the people who drank the marketing kool aide that it'll do everything for everyone. The laws of physics and aerodynamics cannot, however, be fooled. Also its very unfair to send one $10M plane up against one $100M plane... they should have sent 10 F-16 up against the F-35 to be economically fair. Or launched over 200 cruise missiles at the airfield the F-35 is based at and see who "wins", who has control of the air when the enemy literally no longer has airports or planes or air force personnel.