During a major Oval Office address on Friday, President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth introduced a new sixth-generation fighter jet costing $20 billion. In an unbelievable move, Trump named the jet after himself — the F47 — emphasizing his place in history as President of the United States.
“The F47 will be the most advanced, capable, and lethal aircraft ever built. We’re confident that it overpowers the capabilities of any nation,” he said before adding: “47 is a lovely number, isn’t it.”
The P-38 was more of a Fighter-Escort than an interceptor. The P-51 is the most widely accepted best fighter interceptor of WW2.
The P-38 was absolutely extremely versatile, but as for an interceptor, the Mustang was better all around as a fighter and interceptor. Faster, longer range, more agile, better armed for air-to-air combat, and lower stall speed.
The P-38s would escort bombers on the first leg and hand over to P-51s, over an active combat zone, because the P-51 was so superior of a fighter interceptor.
the f-47 “Self Immolating Corporate-gloryhole” or “SICG” for short.
the role of the lightning changed with the introduction of the P-51 since the mustang was such a high performance long range bird that it remained relevant even as a jet far longer than any other converted prop to jet design. early in the war the lightning was almost exclusively used as an interceptor given its high top speeds but lower maneuverability. however, it also changed the way interceptor strategy was conceived forever. for example, the other famous interceptor of the war, the spitfire, was a pure dogfighter. it had a high top speed, good climbing performance, low wing loading for maneuverability, and no range. meanwhile the lighting was good for strafing enemy fighters before they ever had a chance to engage by just being insanely fast compared to the birds it was up against.
again though, it has everything to do with that fighters in WW2 were becoming obsolete at an astounding rate as manufacturing became more advanced as the war progressed. a plane introduced in one role at the start of its service might be relegated into another role within a year or two because operational realities shifted so much. i think there’s no greater example of this than the Mitsubishi Zero. it started the war as an air supremacy fighter and ended its service as a guided bomb whose control module was a human being.
anyway. i’m rambling. by far the most interesting designs to me were the ones with long service lives. the p-38 and the p-51 are particularly interesting in that they both demonstrate that the united states was heavily focused on operational supremacy with their hardware designs. both were designed to operate at long ranges unsupported without sacrificing combat performance