Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nypsy on November 04, 2014, 07:49:16 AM
-
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-35c-joint-strike-fighter-traps-aboard-a-carrier-for-t-1654272981/+damon
Baby steps, baby steps...
-
God that thing is ugly
-
It's beautiful.
-
The carrier landings have to be magnitudes easier because the pilot is able to look through the cockpit (and airframe) with the F-35s helmet.
-
The carrier landings have to be magnitudes easier because the pilot is able to look through the cockpit (and airframe) with the F-35s helmet.
Not to mention the A-6 Intruder Landing Gear it uses... :D (Sorry, had to sneak that in there... Intruders Forever!)
-
man... the good old days sure were good
http://youtu.be/0tFUoaIVfW0
-
man... the good old days sure were good
http://youtu.be/0tFUoaIVfW0
Great video, I love the old Paint Schemes, Back before Low-Vis Gray. Now, entire Airwings of Hornets... blech.
-
man... the good old days sure were good
http://youtu.be/0tFUoaIVfW0
Great vid :aok
-
The Carrier air wings sure were a diverse bunch of planes until recently. Through the cold war until the retirement of the F14, a whole pile of planes. A mid 80s group could have F14s, F18s, A7s, A6s, S3s, EA6Bs, E2Cs, Helos, the COD, and the various aircraft used for recon before the F14 got that job as well later. Vietnam era groups were pretty much the same, with the A4, F8 Crusader, A1 for CAS/ResCap, and others along with the F4s and A7 and A6.
It must be a lot easier with logistics now with only 6 or 7 types instead of close to a dozen, that's for sure.
Plus one on the good vid.
-
Eventually, within 10 years, this will be whittled down to "a few". F-18 and F-35 mostly. Right? With E2Ds? as far as fixed wing goes? I think the plan for refueling is buddy refueling, I may be wrong.
So all this makes things a lot easier which translates into sortie rates your grandpapy on His Essex class could only dream of. Most of all with the remarkable rates that will be sustained for the 18 and 35. The future of CV strike, between the launch platforms and the weapons, is about to take one huge leap forward.
-
this one's great too (probably been seen before), love the clips of the tomcat being stress tested before flight
http://youtu.be/xJG4R3bJNEM
also was reading about how steam catapults on the new Ford Class carriers are being replaced with an electric system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System
-
Eventually, within 10 years, this will be whittled down to "a few". F-18 and F-35 mostly. Right? With E2Ds? as far as fixed wing goes? I think the plan for refueling is buddy refueling, I may be wrong.
Still gonna have the COD too.
-
Still gonna have the COD too.
Yup. With all the turmoil around the "Common Support Aircraft" projects over the years, it seems pretty evident, at least to me, that nobody has created an a/c better suited to the COD tasks than the current plane being used. The fleet of 35 will time out in 2028, and there are efforts underway to modernize them and extend even that date quite a bit (new avionics, engines, etc). The V22 was thought to be a good alternative, but gives up about 20% in range, and has a much higher useful load. It would allow the fleet to deliver cargo to various ships point to point, and remove helos from the distribution equation, but at a cost in range and expense of the a/c. Pros - V22 is pretty much as fast, a little less legs, but has way more flexibility along with the point-point ship supply issue, and more cargo capacity in terms of weight of load, vs cons of a more complicated and expensive aircraft to maintain. Who knows, maybe the V22 will end up being not a bad option, having a few on a CVN wouldn't hurt for SAR extra duties, or all manner of other stuff the V22 can do that a COD cannot. Close call IMO.
Good article about it:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/July/Pages/NavytoConsiderNewWaystoShuttlePassengers,SuppliestoAircraftCarriers.aspx
I've read conflicting things about the V22s actual range and payload stats. A lot of Marines have posted stuff online saying it really can only lift around 8000lb internally for around 200nm radius, NOT 20,000lbs like the company always says. I don't know what the actual factual figures are for cargo for the V22, but so long as it was the same as the COD, it would make it at least something to consider IMO so far as a replacement.
Interesting Navy Eval stuff - http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/V22%20Easterly%20presentation%20Oct%2014%202004.pdf
-
this one's great too (probably been seen before), love the clips of the tomcat being stress tested before flight
http://youtu.be/xJG4R3bJNEM
also was reading about how steam catapults on the new Ford Class carriers are being replaced with an electric system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System
Thanks for sharing bro :rock
-
Yup. With all the turmoil around the "Common Support Aircraft" projects over the years, it seems pretty evident, at least to me, that nobody has created an a/c better suited to the COD tasks than the current plane being used. The fleet of 35 will time out in 2028, and there are efforts underway to modernize them and extend even that date quite a bit (new avionics, engines, etc). The V22 was thought to be a good alternative, but gives up about 20% in range, and has a much higher useful load. It would allow the fleet to deliver cargo to various ships point to point, and remove helos from the distribution equation, but at a cost in range and expense of the a/c. Pros - V22 is pretty much as fast, a little less legs, but has way more flexibility along with the point-point ship supply issue, and more cargo capacity in terms of weight of load, vs cons of a more complicated and expensive aircraft to maintain. Who knows, maybe the V22 will end up being not a bad option, having a few on a CVN wouldn't hurt for SAR extra duties, or all manner of other stuff the V22 can do that a COD cannot. Close call IMO.
Good article about it:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/July/Pages/NavytoConsiderNewWaystoShuttlePassengers,SuppliestoAircraftCarriers.aspx
I've read conflicting things about the V22s actual range and payload stats. A lot of Marines have posted stuff online saying it really can only lift around 8000lb internally for around 200nm radius, NOT 20,000lbs like the company always says. I don't know what the actual factual figures are for cargo for the V22, but so long as it was the same as the COD, it would make it at least something to consider IMO so far as a replacement.
Interesting Navy Eval stuff - http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/V22%20Easterly%20presentation%20Oct%2014%202004.pdf
They should do both then. Modernize the Greyhounds and use them for the supply runs where runways are available, and a small Osprey fleet for the point to point runs.
-
Well if you think about it, Modern Air Wings are somewhat becoming similar to their World War 2 predecessors. 2-3 different aircraft.
-
Yup. With all the turmoil around the "Common Support Aircraft" projects over the years, it seems pretty evident, at least to me, that nobody has created an a/c better suited to the COD tasks than the current plane being used. The fleet of 35 will time out in 2028, and there are efforts underway to modernize them and extend even that date quite a bit (new avionics, engines, etc). The V22 was thought to be a good alternative, but gives up about 20% in range, and has a much higher useful load. It would allow the fleet to deliver cargo to various ships point to point, and remove helos from the distribution equation, but at a cost in range and expense of the a/c. Pros - V22 is pretty much as fast, a little less legs, but has way more flexibility along with the point-point ship supply issue, and more cargo capacity in terms of weight of load, vs cons of a more complicated and expensive aircraft to maintain. Who knows, maybe the V22 will end up being not a bad option, having a few on a CVN wouldn't hurt for SAR extra duties, or all manner of other stuff the V22 can do that a COD cannot. Close call IMO.
Good article about it:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/July/Pages/NavytoConsiderNewWaystoShuttlePassengers,SuppliestoAircraftCarriers.aspx
I've read conflicting things about the V22s actual range and payload stats. A lot of Marines have posted stuff online saying it really can only lift around 8000lb internally for around 200nm radius, NOT 20,000lbs like the company always says. I don't know what the actual factual figures are for cargo for the V22, but so long as it was the same as the COD, it would make it at least something to consider IMO so far as a replacement.
Interesting Navy Eval stuff - http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/V22%20Easterly%20presentation%20Oct%2014%202004.pdf
I personally don't have any knowledge/experience with the V-22. However, I spend some time with the COD guys at VRC-30, and this was the general take:
The V-22 would be a TERRIBLE COD. Not only would the carrier deck require re-work to handle the heat, but the V-22 is NOT pressurized, and quite often the C-2 WILL fly missions that require pressurization. Additionally, as you mentioned, the V-22 cannot carry the load that's advertised. They said something to the effect of about 50% of the weight of the current C-2. And they did mention serious range problems.
-
Carriers are good for countries without air defense , otherwise its too vulnerable. So why do we need stealth on carrier if they cant do crap about it in the first place?
-
Carriers are good for force projection beyond a nation's connected landmass. The Americans are in a fairly unique position that they must have a large navy to get to anywhere "interesting". Unlike Europe or Russia or China who can literally just march to the Middle East or Africa if they have to (although Africa is a long trek for the Chinese...) Among other "interesting" countries, European NATO members share borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. The Middle East and North Africa are within tactical striking range of European airbases. America is like an island on the other side of the world...
-
Carriers are good for force projection beyond a nation's connected landmass. The Americans are in a fairly unique position that they must have a large navy to get to anywhere "interesting". Unlike Europe or Russia or China who can literally just march to the Middle East or Africa if they have to (although Africa is a long trek for the Chinese...) Among other "interesting" countries, European NATO members share borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. The Middle East and North Africa are within tactical striking range of European airbases. America is like an island on the other side of the world...
Like I said, third world countries should worry about carrier group but any modern army will sink it with ease.
-
"With ease" is something that has yet to be proven... even tested.
-
Like I said, third world countries should worry about carrier group but any modern army will sink it with ease.
This might just be the funniest thing I have ever read...
What's your level of knowledge of the Aegis systems on our cruisers? Ever seen the picket screen we put up in front of a CVN group? Wanna take a guess how far out we can spot incoming ordinance or aircraft and hit them with defensive weapons? Or even how effective an air wing would be at defending the ship and suppressing a modern force? In fact, our carrier groups are MORE well suited to fighting industrial nations than third world countries.
There is a reason we still use CVN groups to flex our muscles around China and Russia: A carrier battlegroup is a force to be reckoned with. To think anything less would be immensely foolish.
-
It's beautiful.
I will raise you an F-14
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8IaxVnSi--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/j3ban44vxdfebjsmwipu.jpg)
How dare you call that helicopter-jet one night stand child "beautiful"
-
Carriers are good for force projection beyond a nation's connected landmass. The Americans are in a fairly unique position that they must have a large navy to get to anywhere "interesting". Unlike Europe or Russia or China who can literally just march to the Middle East or Africa if they have to (although Africa is a long trek for the Chinese...) Among other "interesting" countries, European NATO members share borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. The Middle East and North Africa are within tactical striking range of European airbases. America is like an island on the other side of the world...
Huh? I thought you were in an army of some type somewheres.
March into Africa?
-
I will raise you an F-14
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8IaxVnSi--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/j3ban44vxdfebjsmwipu.jpg)
How dare you call that helicopter-jet one night stand child "beautiful"
THAT is a GORGEOUS airplane!
-
THAT is a GORGEOUS airplane!
Excactly! The F-35 is just beautiful (and in a techy, geeky way).
-
Excactly! The F-35 is just beautiful (and in a techy, geeky way).
Meh... they had one at NAS Pensacola today. It looks zoomie and futuristic from the front, from the side it looks a little short and stout (not in a good way), and from the rear it's just hideous. The Tomcat was gorgeous, the Hornet is okay, (Better in two-seat super-hornet form) and the 35 is just ugly. I can't imagine it sliding too much farther downhill from here lol.
-
Huh? I thought you were in an army of some type somewheres.
March into Africa?
Perhaps there's a communication problem here. I don't get your question? European armies have marched into Africa on countless times since the beginning of time. Some armies have marched as far as India and South-East Asia. Asian armies (the Mongols in particular) have marched into Europe. The Persians marched into Europe. Africans (Moors) held the Iberian peninsula (Spain, Portugal) for 200 years, and it took another 300 years for the European kingdoms to completely drive them out.
-
This might just be the funniest thing I have ever read...
What's your level of knowledge of the Aegis systems on our cruisers? Ever seen the picket screen we put up in front of a CVN group? Wanna take a guess how far out we can spot incoming ordinance or aircraft and hit them with defensive weapons? Or even how effective an air wing would be at defending the ship and suppressing a modern force? In fact, our carrier groups are MORE well suited to fighting industrial nations than third world countries.
There is a reason we still use CVN groups to flex our muscles around China and Russia: A carrier battlegroup is a force to be reckoned with. To think anything less would be immensely foolish.
How many aircraft it can carry? Regardless of number it will be less with every sortie, and I bet it will go down after the first anti ship missile attack. It may intercept 5 at once but there will be 20 going at mach 3, it wont even need to detonate.
-
How many aircraft it can carry? Regardless of number it will be less with every sortie, and I bet it will go down after the first anti ship missile attack. It may intercept 5 at once but there will be 20 going at mach 3, it wont even need to detonate.
Again, any clue about an Aegis system? What is your background making these claims, lots of Holywood?
An aircraft carrier is NEVER alone. There is an entire multi-billion dollar state of the art battle system designed with the most intense modern threats in mind. You're talking out of your rear.
-
How many aircraft it can carry? Regardless of number it will be less with every sortie, and I bet it will go down after the first anti ship missile attack. It may intercept 5 at once but there will be 20 going at mach 3, it wont even need to detonate.
The Russian Air Force currently operates 38 fighter squadrons and 15 bomber squadrons. The US Navy currently has 9 Carrier Air Wings with 4 F/A-18 squadrons each for a total of 36 attack squadrons. In addition each carrier has a squadron of EW aircraft like the EA-6 and EA-18.
The USN currently has one carrier being refuled, and two new carriers are under construction. So within a few years it will operate 12 super carriers with 48 attack squadrons.
-
Perhaps there's a communication problem here. I don't get your question? European armies have marched into Africa on countless times since the beginning of time. Some armies have marched as far as India and South-East Asia. Asian armies (the Mongols in particular) have marched into Europe. The Persians marched into Europe. Africans (Moors) held the Iberian peninsula (Spain, Portugal) for 200 years, and it took another 300 years for the European kingdoms to completely drive them out.
Were not interested in the 1600s, or BC for that matter. You just dont simply "march" a modern mechanized force thousands of miles. The armor you dont "march" anywheres. You have to move it by ship or rails, let alone the logistical support, let alone the troops, let alone needing to control the airspace. Look at what it took to move those heavy Corp to Saudi in Gulf-1. It took countless ships and trains along with the OK and help of many countries. And it took months to do along a supply chain that was not under attack. From the time of the Iraqi invasion to the time of the coalition attacking on the ground took almost 6 mos, and even then some commanders said we werent yet ready.
And that was NATO at its peak. America at its peak. The Russians and Chinese dont even come close when it comes to projecting power. So methinks theres little chance the Chinese will pull a Genghis Khan and march or ride into Africa. They would have a hard enough time "marching" into Vietnam, "they failed in '79", and they cant even take an Island 90 miles off their coast.
-
Everybody fails in Vietnam, but that's besides the point. The distance the German mechanized army advanced into Russia in WWII, is roughly the distance from Turkey to China. At its peak the Eastern Front was as wide as the distance from Turkey to India. You can drive a car, on the road, from the North Cape in northern Norway all the way to Vietnam if you want (and if you can get all the visas...) The road network and rail network across the Eurasian landmass is extensive. And yes, the German panzers drove and fought all the way from Poland to the suburbs of Moscow, and to Stalingrad, and to the Caucasus.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/mapeuropeasia.JPG)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/Height-of-German-Advance-in-WWII.gif)
In 2004 Ewan McGregor and Charlie Boorman drove this route on motorcycles.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/longwayround.JPG)
-
Ah, the classic debate between people who have actually served in a modern military force and armchair commandos.
-
I think Rich also have served. Not sure if it was in the army though.
-
So within a few years it will operate 12 super carriers with 48 attack squadrons.
So 12 torpedoes is all the chinese need then :devil
-
No I was in USAF and know the difference between 1941 and 2014. There would be no secret build up of forces today, no surprises. Hell in 1941 most of the Soviet supply chain, and much of the German one, was still pulled by horses. Attacking with a modern combined arms force is a very intricate operation today, as is keeping it supplied.
Theres plenty of evidence of how difficult it is with the examples of Gulf 1 and Iraq 2. The Russians and Chinese just dont have that capability to project power like that. And they sure as hell cant do it in secret.
Of all the dumb things your saying the comparisons your trying to make between today, WW2, and maybe the Romans leave me dumbfounded. You just dont pick up and say "everyone run south for 1,000 miles" and expect it to work.
Even we had clusterfracks supplying attacking troops in Iraq-2. An attack that wasnt secret to anybody. Lol how in hell would the Russians or Chinese even get to the middle east? Neither have much amphib capability, neither have an Air Force able to support the operation, and neither have the navy able to protect it. The Soviets messed up an operation on their border and the current Russian force, comparatively, is a shadow of the Soviet one of Dec. 1979.
You can drive a car, on the road, from the North Cape in northern Norway all the way to Vietnam if you want (and if you can get all the visas...)
In 2004 Ewan McGregor and Charlie Boorman drove this route on motorcycles.
WTF does that have to do with moving modern armies?
-
Have you noticed?..
Based on the hook size alone... it isn't very impressive aircraft. Look how tinyit is!
(http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/F35CVX23-141103-O-ZZ999-002b.jpg)
It seems that the "legacy" carrier fighters have much more impressive hook:
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Dayton2003/F18f/F18fFlyingDirty9oClock.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5009/5285127155_d2d413b518_z.jpg)
Even some tiny planes have a huge hook in comparison to the "state of the art" multi-billion dollar aircraft.
(http://warbirdlegends.com/Photos/Modern_Fighter/A4_TM3524_OSH2010KR_05.jpg)
Now I'm not surprised it had problems hooking up the carrier... :rofl
-
Have you noticed?..
Based on the hook size alone... it isn't very impressive aircraft. Look how tinyit is!
(http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/F35CVX23-141103-O-ZZ999-002b.jpg)
It seems that the "legacy" carrier fighters have much more impressive hook:
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Dayton2003/F18f/F18fFlyingDirty9oClock.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5009/5285127155_d2d413b518_z.jpg)
Even some tiny planes have a huge hook in comparison to the "state of the art" multi-billion dollar aircraft.
(http://warbirdlegends.com/Photos/Modern_Fighter/A4_TM3524_OSH2010KR_05.jpg)
Now I'm not surprised it had problems hooking up the carrier... :rofl
LOL! It is on the small end, IIRC, it looked about the size of an F-16.
-
See Rule #14
-
Have you noticed?..
Based on the hook size alone... it isn't very impressive aircraft. Look how tinyit is!
(http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/F35CVX23-141103-O-ZZ999-002b.jpg)
It seems that the "legacy" carrier fighters have much more impressive hook:
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Dayton2003/F18f/F18fFlyingDirty9oClock.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5009/5285127155_d2d413b518_z.jpg)
Even some tiny planes have a huge hook in comparison to the "state of the art" multi-billion dollar aircraft.
(http://warbirdlegends.com/Photos/Modern_Fighter/A4_TM3524_OSH2010KR_05.jpg)
Now I'm not surprised it had problems hooking up the carrier... :rofl
It's not the size of the hook, it's how you use it. ;)
-
It's not the size of the hook, it's how you use it. ;)
Especially when "hooking up."
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
Ah, the classic debate between people who have actually served in a modern military force and armchair commandos.
Yes, because seeking the advice of a PFC who shot himself in the leg on the rifle range is how wars are won. :lol
-
Have you noticed?..
Based on the hook size alone... it isn't very impressive aircraft. Look how tinyit is!
(http://intercepts.defensenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/F35CVX23-141103-O-ZZ999-002b.jpg)
It seems that the "legacy" carrier fighters have much more impressive hook:
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Dayton2003/F18f/F18fFlyingDirty9oClock.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5009/5285127155_d2d413b518_z.jpg)
Even some tiny planes have a huge hook in comparison to the "state of the art" multi-billion dollar aircraft.
(http://warbirdlegends.com/Photos/Modern_Fighter/A4_TM3524_OSH2010KR_05.jpg)
Now I'm not surprised it had problems hooking up the carrier... :rofl
Garbage. Designed to fight yesterday's war. Compromised by the Marines' obsession with VTOL............which they will only use 10 percent of the time.
That pathetic motor can't be pumped up any more than it is without more Burner..........and it is already a giant star in the sky as is. Stealth. Ha ha.
-
Well if you think about it, Modern Air Wings are somewhat becoming similar to their World War 2 predecessors. 2-3 different aircraft.
Not exactly. The types fielded were more varied. One CV might have had SB2C, F6F, TBM. Another might have F4U in place of F6F. Others would have SBD and FM-2.
The lack of a diverse air wing is a bad thing. Fewer manufacturers... Lost skill and experience. We are better off without Grumman, for example?
-
God that thing is ugly
Indeed. Horrible six view, too.
Give me a clean Super any day.
-
Indeed. Horrible six view, too.
Give me a clean Super any day.
LMAO. That airplane has brought the term "situational awareness" to a new level.
-
I was excited by the JSF/X-32/X-35 program 15 years ago (when I still believed the hype about the all the money it would save). Now I just don't get it.
I understand the F-35B for the Marines VTOL need/want, but the thing is the A and C variants will outnumber the B by 5 to 1, and every other capability is compromised to fit in the STOVL capability... which they don't have.
So... ... the US Marines get what they want, and everyone else gets stuck with a fighter that has been severely compromised to fit a capability that they don't have. :huh
Seriously can someone explain to me what advantage the A and C variants has over the current fleet? Range, payload, cruise speed, thrust/weight, all seem to be worse, or at least no better then the current fleet. It's somewhat stealthy I guess, and has better targeting/tracking systems (but those systems could be retrofitted into current aircraft).
What am I missing here? On the surface the F-35A and C seem to be a huge expensive let down.
EDIT:
I wonder if anyone thinks that Boeings X-32 would have turned out better if it had been picked.
-
I've decided that instead of being a low observable F-16, its actually more like a low observable A-7 plus some air to air capability. A cut down crusader, the A-7 was a decent single engine bomb truck.
-
THAT is a GORGEOUS airplane!
(http://hdwallpapersmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/F-14-Tomcat-Images-wallpaper.png)
-
Seriously can someone explain to me what advantage the A and C variants has over the current fleet? Range, payload, cruise speed, thrust/weight, all seem to be worse, or at least no better then the current fleet. It's somewhat stealthy I guess,
It was never meant to be a super ATA plane like the F22. It was meant to be, like the F16, a multi-mission fighter that will survive in future environments. Which legacy aircraft will have great difficulty doing. Boy have people learned nothing in the air wars of the last 50 years?
Range on internal fuel will be much greater then the F18SH. Yeah you can put extra tanks on the 18 but then you have greatly increased its already to large RCS. Which BTW is over twice as small on the 35 as the F117s was. Performance-wise in the ATA role it will be as good or better as the legacy fighters its replacing. In other words "good enough" "maneuverable enough" and "fast enough" because its stealth, advanced weaponry, and avionics suite will give it a big edge. Future air wars will be won on opening nights with the enemys air force probably never even seeing ours. Opening nights bombing alone will severely degrade their ability to fight an air war.
Let me ask you this? The F35 is a very expensive program for us even with the financial help, and safety net of future sales, from/to our allies. Imagine the stress being put on China's military spending attempting to build a clone of the F35. And why would they do so if they felt it wasnt essential?
The best way to win an air war is to never fight it. Ask the Israeli's about 1967 and then 1973. Iraq was competitive against Iran, as was Pakistan/India, in their air war's. Against NATO Iraq wasnt even interesting. Thats what the technological edge gives you ; It gives you an enemy AF smoking in its hangars, its CNC/ATA network in ruins, and whatever left of it our flying blind or running.
China is spending tons cause they dont want us to be the only ones able to put long range smart munitions thru windows, launched from Jabos that look like big insects on a radar screen. Stop thinking of one dimensional air wars where the better performing ATA fighter wins period. Its not going to work that way.
-
LMAO. That airplane has brought the term "situational awareness" to a new level.
The Just So Failed?
You mean the jittery helmet that gives pilots vertigo? Lol