Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Sandboxx" channel.

  1. The factors that you are missing is that normally , stealth aircraft fly with reflectors to protect their stealth during non combat operations In combat, radars don't simply operate freely , They are normally targeted for destruction Their ability to operate depends on various factors. Their range and the range of the weapons used against it
    710
  2. On a scale of 1 of 10 its about 2 First its projected payload is extremely low compared to other bombers Second, China still lacks aerial tankers and bases to deploy it globally Even without bases, they dont have the tankers to send it long ranges The problem with it operating in such a limited area is that its much easier to find
    147
  3. Skynet and Legion approve this message
    144
  4. its not about power, its about delivery and flexibility and the US has better options than Russia
    112
  5. Its pretty simple to understand. One F-15E can carry up 16 GBU-38s while a B-2 can carry to 80 Effectively 5 F-15Es or 1 B-2 More the point, bombers can mix and match their payloads. The B-1B for example can carry a mix of GBU-31s/39 plus AGM-154 and AGM-158s But most important is that bombers combat radius is far greater than strike fighters They can fly thousands of miles or orbit for hours without the need to hit the tanker F-15E, F-16s and F-18 have to top off hourly Adding conventional strike capabilities to their bombers was the smartest thing the USAF ever did
    95
  6. When you realize what type of sub the Foxtrot was I would say the Cartel got a blessing by not getting it
    88
  7. The simple answer is yes The key to the F-16 survival is it not trying to engage Russian aircraft in the air and staying well clear of S-300 and S-400 sites SHORADs and jammers are vital targets that F-16s must engage with AGM-88s and unlike the MIG-29 and Su-27, the F-16 can fully use it in all modes As long as Ukraine doesnt overstretch, they will be good
    66
  8. Yes , they are heavy on the propaganda
    44
  9. Its just another reflection on how poorly training is done in Russia When helicopters are armed ,they generally avoid doing what the KA-52s did in case of a accidental discharge The helo and weapons are oriented away from personnel Secondly the range control area is this is not clearly marked This looks they set this up hastily When buildings are clearly marked, the pilots their position on the range Just looking at the video, there are so many things wrong its amazing that no one died
    43
  10. Well they hyped it up and the US countered it with an old Patriot missile
    37
  11. Russia has operated units in Syria in plain view of western intel gathering aircraft since 2015 or the units operating in Ukraine, again ,in plain view of the western intel gathering assets. The US has long range cruise missiles able to attack the S-400 from over 300 miles and now the development of hypersonic weapons makes the S-400 moot
    34
  12.  @lgnfve  Its like they never have heard of SEAD and EW
    29
  13. Looks pretty damn good Can't wait to see rest of the angles as well as that test flight
    28
  14. Russia claimed that they knocked out all of the Ukraine air defense capabilites but MIG-29s are designed to be rugged and able to operate from austere runways So its possible that the Ukraine airforce relocated some aircraft and Russia sent its aircraft unescorted and bomb laded under the impression that Ukraine had no aircraft left would have caught off guard
    28
  15. The a heck of flex for the F-22
    25
  16. By Dec 2020.,the V-280 has logged over 200 hours while the SB-1 barely logged 26 hours The V-280 demonstrated that it was considerably more mature and ready
    23
  17. Aircraft going over the side has been happening since WW2
    21
  18. The NGAD does need to reuse some F-35 tech but we do need a true successor to the F-22
    21
  19. The F-16 is a decent fighter Its record is not as impressive as the F-15Cs
    20
  20. The simple fact is that media does not understand the complexities of fighter development and the F-35 is not a rare case Sukhoi was given the contract for the PAK FA in 2002 which become the Su-57 yet its 2024 and there barely 32 Su-57 due the massive delays with the project Chengdu built the J-20 as outgrowth of the JXX program. There are 300 built however in the 13 years its flown, its gone through over 5 engine changes as China continues to struggle with developing reliable engines for it aircraft. Also realize that China deleted the gun from the J-20 which cut development and design time Now note that with the Russian and Chinese programs, the sole users were just RuAF and PLAAF while the F-35 is built to meet the requirements of the export market Simple facts like this , the media glosses over
    19
  21.  @Just_A_Random_Desk  Exactly the point The F-15 has handed MIG-29 and MIG-25 their asses more than once
    18
  22.  adam  The way Russia uses them is not practical The way the US would is very practical Example by attacking S-400 , S-500 and bases with A-50 AWACS , USAF aircraft could attack with impunity using air launch cruise missiles as Russian forces would have no way to stop the USAF. S-300 on down are no match for newer US weapons China's defense strategy relies heavily on its DF-21/26 keep the USN carrier at bay If the USN can neutralizes the DFs, blow for blow, the PLAN, PLA and PLAAF has zero chance against the USN
    17
  23. @@phillipbanes5484 The record of the F-15 is 100 plus kills to zero losses the F-16 has both numerous kills and losses in air combat Turkey has lost a few F-16s in ACM
    17
  24.  @Spearhead45  The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you
    16
  25. The development hypersonic weapons and advance jamming systems makes the S-400 moot Current cruise missiles need 30 mins to cover 250 miles , EW planes can't suppress S-400 for that long The AGM-88G travels Mach 4 and covers that same distance in 5 mins hypersonic weapons can cover that distance in as little as 1 min
    16
  26. Yep The USAF was having funding issues with the NGAD but this revelation ensures that NGAD will go through now with money to spare
    15
  27.  @shanerooney7288  Ukraine would still be the same except with T-14 burning instead T-14 has an impressive defense system but it can still be defeated by tactics and weapons
    15
  28. The simple was that it was never going to happen period Here's the rub, adopting an USN aircraft for land use is very easy Now trying to adopt land based aircraft carrier use is virtually impossibe The F-35 differs because the F-35B and F-35C was considered from the start so the airframe had be adaptable for ship use Historically, land based aircraft on carriers never works The F-14 was basically heavily altered version of the F-111B and even with its changes, the weight issues were never resolved The F-22 and F-14 empty weight was over 43,000lbs whereas the F-35C is 34,000lbs and F-18E/F is 32,000lbs So right off the bat, there is that issue Secondly the F-22 sits very low so compared to the F-35 So in addition it would have would have to be addressed Could the USN shaved off 10,000lbs off the F-22 not likely carrier based aircraft only work when they are designed from the start as carrier aircraft adapting the design does not work Look at the Su-33 and J-15 not very capable. The MiG-29K also problem Russia is going to learn the hard way when they try to navalize the Su-57
    15
  29. The Doolittle raiders had balls of steel for that daring mission Now the strange part it is that the experiments with Rocket assisted takeoff and air to air refueling had taken place before WW2 So its odd that no one picked up on those ideas for raid
    14
  30. Well if they fitted with the F-22s F119s or F-35 F-135, it would have likely done Mach 3 with ease but consider the amount of equipment the F-15EX carries externally Mach 3 while cool is not advisable
    14
  31. Thats only because of its low procurement The GBU-39s only 40K and there are 17,000 made Once procurement goes into full swing, you will see massive drop in price
    14
  32.  @Brandonthesnifferofall  You are correct that V-280 has larger foot print but it brings more to table than the SB-1 and Blackhawk For the Marines, the CH-46E required 3 days to make the trip from NC to AZ. The MV-22 does it in one day The MV-22 cruises at 300 mph which is fast enough for it to be refueled by KC-10, KC-46 and KC-135s in the air The Blackhawk can only be refueled by KC-130s in the air The V-280 cruises at 320 mph so its not limited to solely KC-130 for air to air refueling Being able to use jet tankers opens up a lot possibilities for deployment The USAF and USMC have both demonstrated the MV-22s ability to self deployed over considerable distances The Blackhawk requires C-5 break downs . With V-280, it can self deploy to a location, the change crew, allow maintenance to do a quick D/T and get to work with an 2 hours or less With C-5 break down, it takes hours for the Blackhawk , it has to be put back together, QAed, refueled, tested up before it can get to work The Blackhawk carry 105mm while the V-280 can carry 105mm or 155mm Now the real question is what will 160th SOAR and SOCOM say They may procure the SB-1 as its more adaptable for the Direct Action Penetrator (DAP) and Stealth modification
    14
  33.  @hamidshahriari6474  Ukraine getting the AIM-120D isnt unlikely The AIM-120 comes in various configurations Right now the US military has AIM-120D-3 and F3R which are much newer than baseline AIM-120D AIM-120D baselines are being upgraded to D-3 and F3R it may be easier for the US to give Ukraine the older AIM-120D baseline models and buy factory fresh AIM-120D3/F3R but for now, its likely will be AIM-120-C7s
    14
  34. The selection of the SM-6 to become AIM-174B is geared combat enemy missiles than aircraft. The concept is that F-18E/F with AIM-174B backed by E-2D would be able to engage targets long before they become a threat to the fleet Effectively increasing the range of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) The question now is if the USAF will adopt it for the F-15EX if the AIM-174B retains the 140lbs warhead, its far more lethal to enemy targets than AIM-120 and AIM-260 and USAF may consider to deal with long range Tu-160s attacks
    13
  35. The Su-57 represents Russia understanding of stealth as you can see with its design they literally have no clue
    13
  36. The issue here is that China has no heavy lift helicopter like the US and Russia does Their plans on copying the Mi-26 for the AVIC Advanced Heavy Lifter but that looks to be not working out so like the Z-20, they wanna copy US designs
    13
  37. Its very plausible The footage may questionable but action itself is not We know that Su-25s, Su-24 and Su-34s would be easy targets for a MIG-29 as well transports and helicopters Russia claimed that they knocked out all of the Ukraine air defense capabilites but MIG-29s are designed to be rugged and able to operate from austere runways So its possible that the Ukraine airforce relocated some aircraft and Russia sent its aircraft unescorted and bomb laded under the impression that Ukraine had no aircraft left would have caught off guard
    12
  38. The US has stealth options, Russia does not
    12
  39.  @Rabarbarzynca  They dont to engage Russian bombers , they need F-16s dropping steel on target Right now the most damaging weapon Ukraine has is the Storm Shadow with 1000lbs warhead but its limited on what targets it can engage The F-16 on other hand can use laser guided 500lbs, 1000lbs and 2000lbs Simple deal ATACMS targets S-300 and S-400s in the area, The first section MIG-29s launch ADM-160s with ground forces firing decoy BM-21s to get SHORADs to turn on while a second of AGM-88s locks on an launches against the SHORAD while a 3rd section of F-16s loaded with laser guided bombs strike, ideally 2 loaded with 4X 2000bls each One of the fun things about PAVEWAYs is that US long before JDAM had been working on ways to improve its range allow bombs to dropped from over 9 miles away While Russian EW will cause GPS to drift to causes munitions to be off by as much as 150 ft, the PAVEWAY laser seeker allows the bomb to stay on target Hence why Ukraine should use 2000lbs bombs because 150ft of drift does not matter with 2000lbs bomb or 1000lbs for that matter but like I said, it comes down to Ukraine using the right tactics The absolutely worst thing they could do is try going to air to air
    12
  40. Stealth against ships was always a real nightmare One aircraft uses an anti ship missile for a crippling blow while a second follows through with Quick Sink to finish the job Modern ASM is accurate enough to target specific points on ships A missile to the engine compartment will take all systems off line While striking the bridge is symbolic , the CIC is buried deep in the hull for that reason hence a strike to in the stern has the best chances
    12
  41. The idea of a bomber acting like a missile truck similar to the F-15EX is not a good idea
    11
  42. The B-21 is 6th generation bomber not fighter The confusion is over the fact that it will able to use air to air missiles from its self defense bays
    11
  43. The problem there is that the short sighted people fail to grasp that concept By the time they did with the F-22, it was 4 years too late
    11
  44. The simple answer is that the B-21 can be missile truck for air to ground but as airborne missile truck for air to air is not necessary The US military long ago decided it was more efficient to knock out the enemy's air power on the ground than fighting them in the air A few missiles to runway , fuel depot and munition storage and the enemy's air power in the area is neutralized vs risk a dogfight
    11
  45. I wouldnt say they are playing catch up up China's DFs , ASBM ship and air launched are still very much massive which limits their effectiveness Russia's Kinzhal has proven to be very toothless and the Zircon is hasnt been used enough to gauge its effectiveness Both missiles are limited on what assets can use them The Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) and AGM-183 ARRW unlike Russian and China designs, they are designed to flexible across the US military So its taking longer to develop Both China and Russia took short cuts to their designs and it shows
    11
  46.  @korana6308  It does not matter The fact is that Ukraine was able to get close enough to engage Russia's best fighter and nearly destroyed it
    11
  47. its not really much of a fight To test out anti-stealth radars, the US has F-22s, F-35s, B-2s F-117s and number of MQ/RQs drones as well as the B-21 at their disposal China has the J-20, FC-31 and a few drones as well as the few times they able to watch US exercises So realistically, the F-15EX would able to track and engage the J-20 at long range Additionally, newer variants of the AIM-120 have increased sensitivity to the point where they able to target air to air missiles The J-20 in stealth carries just 4 BVR missiles while the F-15EX carries 12 nominally with max of 22 The F-15EX can literally out shoot the J-20 But worst for the J-20 is the existence of the AIM-174 The J-20 relies heavily on AWACS and tankers for support While the USAF has it spades, China has very few of each
    10
  48. No, you wouldnt hear peep if the F-22 was built to the original spec with side-looking radars the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system full color and had mutli mission weapons similar to F-35 with the original 749
    10
  49.  @apuuvah  How about no You are missing keep points. F-47 tech is already developed whereas the FCAS and GCAP are still working on their tech
    10
  50. They have no choice but to build it Musk Rat is trying to gun for the F-35 program but the USAF smartly pushed the YFQ-44 and YFQ-42 forward which undermines his chances That wont last long so the USAF and the USN need to make choice and fast
    9
  51.  @TheGrindcorps  No ,its just another example of Russian hype failing miserably The Slava class cruiser Moskava was hyped as heavy hitting 11K ton capital warship yet its S-300 didnt stop Ukraine Neptune missiles from sinking her The T-90 was hyped up as the best protected tank in the world yet uncle Javelin made it tap out The Su-34 was hyped as flying tank and 20 shot downs later ,not so much The KA-52 also hyped up and 34 losses later Lastly , the S-400 and Pantsir S1 Not accounting for much There is no doubt that Patriot did bag the Kinzhal The biggest irony is that is that Russia was trying to give the US a black eye and ended up with giving themselves one The Kinzhal was actually targeting that Patriot site
    9
  52. I wont say same conditions Russia is just not stupid in this case Ukraine currently has Patriot, IRIS-T ,NASAMS, SAMPT All those radars are designed to be Network Centric so they transmit data in real time Even if the radar is hit, the command truck can still transmit the data from the attack back to HQ With integrated air defence system (IADS) , they get the data in real time That real time ability is how Ukraine gunners were able to gain a profile on Kinzhal so quickly as well down other aircraft The Su-34 and Su-35 are supposed to be protected by the Khibiny against missile attack yet 7 Su-35 and nearly 30 Su-34s blown out of the sky and counting as well as the lost of A-50s and Il-22, basically everything going horrible wrong with Russian air power over Ukraine they kinda have no choice The US military ironically thanks to heavy losses from Russian SAMS takes SEAD very very seriously They have EA-18G. EC-130. E/A-37 , F-16CJ ,RC-135, Rivet Joint/Combat Sent and virtually all strike aircraft except the F-15 can use the AGM-88 Even B-1 and B-52 can carry ADM-141 and ADM-160s decoys to support SEAD Russia on the other , doesnt think SEAD seriously and they have paid dearly
    9
  53.  @reway8750  How about wrong on all counts First the China's J-20 do not have reliable engines as they installed yet again 5 engines series in just 10 years. Secondly the J-35 is not production As far facing off China, haha lets recap The USAF can fly bombers direct from the US, or the 5 locations on China's doorstep. Japan, South Korea, Diego Garica, Australia or Guam where China's bombers cant leave the SCS The USN like the USAF can subs direct China's doorstep whereas China subs cant leave the SCS plus continue with your nonsense its hilarous
    9
  54.  @Bialy_1  How about no Its very simple, Ist called digging up the garden One B-2 loaded with 16 GBU-31s which 2000lbs strikes the aim point, effectively digging a hole for a second B-2 with GBU-72s follow through paving the way for the MOP to penetrate easier lastly its, its basic physics, the explosion in a confined space will be amplified by the bunker itself
    8
  55. Its very possible Russia claimed that they knocked out all of the Ukraine air defense capabilites but MIG-29s are designed to be rugged and able to operate from austere runways So its possible that the Ukraine airforce relocated some aircraft. Russia sent its aircraft unescorted and bomb laded under the impression that Ukraine had no aircraft left would have caught off guard Su-25s, Su-24 and Su-34s would be easy targets as well transports and helicopters
    8
  56. 1000 percent to play on his ego
    8
  57. The fact that the F-16s are not hunting EW sites is the real tragedy here Remember, Russian EW is shielding them from GPS munitions No shield , and GPS munitions drop like rain with lethal accuracy and Russian forces are forced to run so why are they wasting them going after missiles for
    8
  58. No, a real win would be the USN not wasting its design and procuring 20 more the replace the Flight I Burke A Flight II DDG-1000 would retain a single 155mm naval gun but smartly improved so it has commonality with existing 155mm rounds like M982 Excalibur and others but most important, it can use the 155mm variant of the hyper velocity rounds from the EMRG program. While the 5 inch variant have promise The 155mm variant has several advantages. First, there are precision guided 155mm rounds so adapting their seeker to the 155m HVP is simple task but more importantly the 155mm HVP delivers substantially more kinetic energy on impact The advanced payload module would be able to carry either 12 TLAMs or 3 LRHW. The MK-57 able to use SM-3, SM-6, Patriot MSE and THAADs and lastly fully AEGIS capability
    8
  59. Its very likely but the US number system is weird like that
    8
  60.  @Spearhead45  yeah no, you have been exposed, Case in point, the PLAN only has 3 carriers and barely enough planes to fill them while the USN has 10 CVNs plus 9 LHA/D with ample aircraft F-18s and F-35 The USMC has enough F-35B to put 10 planes each on the 9 LHA/Ds while the USN has 30 fully equipped F-18E/F squadrons for its 11 carriers and thats not counting F-35Cs units, its called numbers and China doesnt have any.
    8
  61. its not shocking its simple balance Boeing gets the NGAD while Lockheed is cranking out the F-35 and Northrop the B-21
    8
  62. Copying doesnt end well
    8
  63.  @oskar6661  Not only fly but fly lundetected and only needs jamming support once its crossed into enemy airspace
    8
  64. Considering the amount of equipment the F-15EX carries externally, SNIPER, DRAGON EYE and LEGION Mach 3 while cool is not advisable The key feature of the F-15E and F-15EX is the ability to carry all 3 with minimal effect on range and payload
    8
  65. Its very simple The A-10 excels at air to ground but Ukraine needs more than that . more to point, they need flexibility The plane for Ukraine is the F-16 The F-16 can carry AIM-9s and AIM-120s for counter air operations. The US can provide older model AIM-9M and AIM-120C-5 so even if the missiles ended up in Russian hands both are late 90s but still very effective It also can carry the AGM-84 Harpoon which opens to the door for Ukraine to knock out the Black Sea fleet completely as well AGM-65s and GBU-10/12/24s for general purpose The AGM-84 also has land attack capability which opens to the door for Ukraine strike Russia at targets previously out of reach Some would agree a combination of the F-16 and A-10 but for quick, easy and simply, just one plane and the F-16 is the plane
    8
  66.  @Atreid3s  The difference is those were actually accidents not stupidity
    7
  67. China is not ahead and it actually has nothing to do with B-2 or B-21 The back bone of the USAF and USN is their support structure aka their ability to power project China has been using its Xi'an Y-20 as base to trying to get power projection capability The Xi'an Y-20 is transport similar to the C-17s and has been developed into tanker and AWACS but China still falls short in power projection regardless of many planes they built because they have no real way to send long range because the lack overseas bases like the US has in Europe, Asia and the middle east for both air and naval forces Building all this equipment doesnt matter if you cant power project it
    7
  68. @fivestringslinger People dont understand that Teen series success is over decades of upgrades and changes The F-16 don't come off the production line block 72, Block 20 is very different aircraft from block 72 Same with the F-15 and F-18, successive upgrades got them to where they are today Most of the bad press about the F-35 is people not understanding how things work When F-15 and F-16 within their first 10 years, they both put close 30 aircraft in ground from accidents/incidents with considerable loss of life The F-35 has several incidents with 6 accidents with only one life lost over its 14 year period Try to mention that and it gets buried The F-35 came from the F-18 success The F-18 had a massive amount of negative press because no one believed that it could replace the F-14 In the gulf war, two F-18s carrying four 2000lbs engaged two MIGs, downed them, returned to mission and hit their targets and returned to their carrier That proven that multi role aircraft worked and that aircraft didnt need to be high on the air to air combat side
    7
  69.  @I_Stand_With_RussiaZOV  Yes kiddo the Russian air force has loss 300 plus aircraft so far
    7
  70.  @Spearhead45  No you are not , the fact that you give out that info so quickly again dead give away
    7
  71.  @jeffreywoodhead2682  The F-35A/C can carry 2x2000lbs internally 1 in each bay The F-35B can only carry it externally
    7
  72. They dont need F-16s SEAD capability right now, what they need it is precision strike capability The F-16 can carry 2 Harpoon anti-ship missiles and even with baseline Harpoon ,they can launch them from over 100 miles away That puts the Black Sea Fleet out of commission The F-16 can be easily intergrated with Storm Shadow but US can do Ukraine a solid and give them JASSM-As JASSM-As would allow Ukraine to wipe out Russian bases in Crimea , Kerch bridge, Russian forward operating bases with aircraft and Black Sea Fleet HQ at Novorossiysk SEAD is important but with F-16 with PAVEWAYs taking the load of ground forces Ground forces can be sent GPS and communication jammers The Tunguska, Panstir S1, Tor ,Buk, S-300 and S-400 very good for countering aircraft but what happens HIMARS or Pzh-2000 drop steel on them They instantly become useless Why risk the F-16s on SEAD when you dont have to
    7
  73.  @trumanhw  Its called an S-Ducting The intake shaped in S so the turbine blades are masked from radar detection decades old tecj
    7
  74.  @Abdullah-mn6sw  Simple First and second generation were in WW1 3rd - WW-2 era emphasized heavier designs,substantially larger bomb loads as well newer bombsights for increased accuracy 4th gen emphasized nuclear strike with bombs and aerial refueling 4.5 added cruise missiles as well conventional strike capabilities 5th added stealth 6th Designed to use commercial off-the-shelf propulsion, C4ISTAR, and radar technologies. networked sensor-shoot capability, Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and aerial reconnaissance along with command and control gear to enable the crew to direct other aircraft and forces. Conventionally and nuclear capable with the possibly of being optionally manned Lastly vastly improved range
    6
  75. The US was never behind, they simply had no for supersonic or hypersonic weapons As newer generation of SAMS sites, missile launchers and other asset are more and more mobile The need for weapons able to target time sensitive relocatable targets became apparent The only things that Lockheed needs to ensure with the MAKO is hard-target penetration , 300 plus mile range and highly advanced seeker for tracking moving or hiding targets The JAGM tri-mode seeker would be good idea as well using the BROACH warhead for hard-target penetration That just leaves getting the range over 300 miles 300 mile range is needed to attack sites like the S-400, and S-500
    6
  76.  @JamesAgans  Ukraine has Patriot, NASAMS and IRIS-T All highly advanced systems that can easily track a Su-57 Hence why they have to fly with Su-35s for protection As for the T-14 As soon as Russia knew where Abrams were operating, they sparred no expense in destroying Even with low ammo, Ukraine would do the same to T-14 and possibly even capture one given Russian forces habit of abandoning vehicles
    6
  77.  @JamesAgans  Considering how many T-90s have been captured that will change Sebria had no Su , only MIGs The reason why MIGs is no longer Russia's main jet is because of its poor performance overseas MIG-21s , MIG-23 and MiG-29s got their asses handed to multiple times hence why Sukhoi is now Russia's main jet Ironically if the Su-57 hadnt flopped , the MIG-35 would have been just a foot note But its got an order of 24 planes from the RuAF which may change as Sus are getting the shit kicked of them in Ukraine
    6
  78. Yet Ukraine with handful of expensive US weapons has been giving Russia the business for 3 years
    6
  79.  @DrGreenThumbNZL  The whole reason this happens is because the range is not clearly marked . In the US, range control builds are clear so the pilots always know their position on the range They are tall towers with flags that pilots can clearly see
    6
  80.  @john_in_phoenix  thunderbolt was already used by the A-10
    6
  81. At this point, Russian needs to leave. The Patriot has already gone 2 for 2 against the Kinzhal. So even if they managed to destroy a Patriot, the amount of effort it took is still major black eye The Ka-52, MI-28, Su-34, Su-30 and T-90s which is supposed to be their latest equipment all getting shredded whole sale and now Ukraine has the frame work for integrated air defence system (IADS) with western equipment Ukraine with functioning IADS would a massive nightmare for Russian forces but its Soviet Russia so they are going to keep throwing bodies at the problem
    6
  82. I actually have to disagree with this While Ukraine is putting out a lot of lessons, this was not one of them Over reliance on drones will bite them in the ass
    6
  83.  @Qwiv  That would be incorrect The KA-52 and Mi-28 are vastly inferior to the Apache and Cobra Thanks to lessons from Iraq and Afghan , The US upgraded both to compensate for the very situation in Ukraine where Russian forces are getting their ass handed to them Not mention , Russia has no MQ-9 style UCAV for Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS)
    6
  84.  @Qwiv  Your gander would be incorrect Its not matter of jamming drones its over reliance You are so reliant on this one asset , that it becomes a single point of failure Jamming is one problem ,Hacking is another problem ,limited payload , range and sensor payloads , again more problems The some of those apply the helos but the design of the FARA would have addressed a lot of short comings with current helo design They had much more stream line and efficient design
    6
  85. Actually no it wouldnt The best aircraft for supporting EA-18G, EC-130s and EC-37s during SEAD/DEAD is F-15E, F-16s, F-18s, F-22s and F-35s An A-10 is useless for SEAD/DEAD SEAD/DEAD need speed and agility in case enemy fighters show up , If J-20 or Su-57 got range, an A-10 would be screwed in WVR or BVR Where those planes can easy fight back , Specifically they can use AIM-120 or the newer AIM-260 Secondly those planes are packed with advanced tech , specifically the ability communicate via Link 16 , tactical targeting network technology (TTNT) or in a pinch They can use utilize their AESA radars for ultra high bandwidth communications where the A-10 has none of the above Lastly they can carry weapons for follow on strikes from stand off range or perform time sensitive strikes SEAD/DEAD is not for the A-10
    6
  86. The AIM-174 job is extending the range of the fleets defenses against missile threats
    6
  87. They used their pull as foot hold but ultimately were proven wrong
    6
  88.  @jamesmaddison4546  The F-15 has literally proven to be itself better than F-16 in every way possible As fighter and the F-15E as strike asset still better than F-16 overall The F-15 has turned with MIG-29s more times than F-16 The Israel who have done majority of combat with F-15 and F-16 still opted for the F-15 over the F-16
    6
  89. F-18 with SM-6 will use the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) as their radars are not optimized for ABW
    6
  90. Past tense The F-15EX is modern power house not relic The 4th gen has been successively upgraded and is the most successful of all generation These will be last variants of the 4th gen
    6
  91. This whole situation is bizarre 16 mil for the AH-64E that makes perfect sense 16 mil for old ass CH-47 ?? its not even a high model like the MH-47 or CH-47F
    6
  92. The F-16 can carry nukes but why would the West provide Putin an excuse to use nukes
    6
  93. No As part of the US military Prepositioning Program , there are ships already there with munitions to reload US military aircraft as needed They just unload them and move them to bomb farm to be built up and then to the aircraft I agree that the USAF may be getting ready to combat test the C-17 rapid dragon
    6
  94.  @longshot7601  The YF-23 was stealthier but the F-22 design had better potential an evolved F-22 design would upgraded the self defense bays from 2 missiles to 4 as well as able to carry the AIM-120 in those bays Potentially increasing the F-22 payload The problem with the YF-23 was its limited weapons bay
    5
  95. In uncontested air space yes In highly contested air space no
    5
  96. Pending FDA approval
    5
  97. Well if Iran want to see a disproportional response They can try the US and find out the hard way
    5
  98.  @glorioustrap  You dont need to be flying at high speed to use AIMs
    5
  99. Thats not true What people dont understand is that training and combat are too very different things Training is very controlled whereas combat is not
    5
  100. The USAF considered that concept for the B-1 as missile truck but its not feasible but B-21 able to carry AIMs means defensively it can protect itself which is deal because it means the SAMS and defending fighters wont be as effective Ideally the B-21 would be able to use AIM-120 or 260s to engage both enemy fighters and incoming missile and use the SiAW to counter attack enemy defenses That would place in a whole new type of bomber
    5
  101. The F-35 will handle air to ground and the FA/XX will also but in a limited in fashion As far as fleet defense goes, there is no need for the FA/XX to have that emphasis. The F-14 was relied solely as fleet defenses with AWG-9 radar and AIM-54 which made it the simple point of failure. The USN has long since evolved to the Cooperative Engagement Capability which fleet defense is completely networked Cruisers and Destroyers have better radars and missiles. Current SM-6 range is 150 miles and the planned SM-6 block II range will be double that. Additional the USN has been testing an air launched variant of the SM-6. An air launched SM-6 would be crucial for fleet defense as it would allow aircraft to engage various threat including hypersonic weapons well outside of the fleet. More to point, they could stop threats long before they got within weapons range. The JASSM-XR does not make senses for the FA/XX The XR weights 5000lbs while JASSM-ER weights 2251lbs. While the XR has double the range of the ER, the ER is more practical for carrier operations The FA/XX only needs hypersonic weapon able to be carried internally with the BROACH warhead and 300 mile plus range nominally weight between 1000-2000lbs In potential conflict with China , hypersonic weapons and EW will be key knocking out Chinese sensors and DF launchers With Russia , its simply out knocking S-400/500.
    5
  102.  @I_Stand_With_RussiaZOV  What do you call nearly 300 losses to against country with limited capabilities in 3 years
    5
  103. What the Marines need to do is buy the MQ-20. The MQ-9 is highly versatile but its design is cant be stealthed up for various reasons The MQ-20 is already stealthy but it lacks the MQ-9 ability for STOL as well ability to carry various external pods Pretty sure General Atomics can adopt the MQ-20 easier to the Marines needs than a redesigned MQ-9
    5
  104. The GAO reports tend to be more fiction than reality 55% of F-35s are mission ready And the point is ? The F-35 is still being phased in F-15, F-16 , F-18 , F-22s s well B-1,B-2 and B-52s are still very much able to take both Chinese and Russian assets with ease But importantly, the F-15, F-16 ,F-18 and B-52 didnt become the premier combat assets for the US over night It took a long time but they top the scales in all areas for combat effectiveness
    5
  105.  @Spearhead45  Second the head of the US MDA has long stated the SM-6 is the US answer all Russian ad Chinese threats both aircraft and missiles
    5
  106.  @Spearhead45  ’s missiles? The PL 15 is far better than the Amramn Again dead give away you are chinese The PL-15 has zero combat while the AIM-120 has 16 confirmed kills so how the quote PL-15 magically better when it has zero combat experience
    5
  107. No The Su-57 is a waste of time When the F-22 was built, targeting pods were still new yet the Su-57 which came much latter has to still externally carry its targeting pod The Su-57 program was so far behind that they to retrofit Su-35 engine and avionics just to get it to testing and avoid all out cancellation The program is finally off the rails but the design is still heavily flawed Ukraine has the defenses that it was designed to evade yet its still on the sideline of the time
    5
  108. @Mike Bridges Yes and no The F-22s APG-77 is optimized for aerial warfare while the F-35 AGP-81 is designed for multi role The APG-77v1 adds multi but not to the extent of the F-35s The F-22s problem is that unlike the F-35, it lacks secure datalinks for communication with other assets The F-35 has 6 which allows to easily work in tandem with EA-18Gs and RC-135s for SEAD or SIGINT The F-22 is just so much wasted potential because of dumbass politics
    5
  109. The simple fact is the F-16 can fully use the AGM-88 to max potential More the point, the F-16 allows Ukraine greater access more weapons
    5
  110. Not likely The Quick Sink range is 50 miles which uncomfortably close when dealing with naval targets The better option is stealthy F-35s with JSMs strike first followed by second pair of F-35s carrying 2 QUICKSINK internally
    5
  111. The problem there is if I was Russia, I would employ the Su-57 against it The F-16 can at least dodge and bug out if engaged by a Su-57 but Saab 340 maxes out at a pedestrian 326 mph With the Erieye mounted, probadly less than 300 mph AWACS doesnt matter if you can protect it
    5
  112.  @Pigeon_Birb  Its called quantity not quality with China The J-20 has been through over 6 different types of engine series as China struggles to deliver viable engine tech Russia resist selling the Su-35 to China for that reason but give in as they were desperate for sales Notice that China hasnt asked for more Su-35 or a license to make them They got 24 and that was it
    5
  113. Ukraine has shown the stagnation of the Russian military and why militaries need to constant advance and not get comfortable with their level of equipment Case in point, The USAF landed MC-130s and AC-130s on roads as well F-35s to demonstrate their ability to operate anywhere Imagine how much differently the Battle of Antonov Airport would have played out if the Russian air force had the same capabilities as the USAF The losses of the MQ-9s over the red sea shows that MQ-9 has reached its obsolence and that stealthier assets like the MQ-20 are needed USAF demonstrated the QuickSink which was powerful enough to sink 40,000 ton LHA. Instead of having to use several missiles One LRASM to cripple the target followed by a few cheaper QuickSink Lastly, Russian EW has proved to be very effective , their one saving grace and has shown that destroying the jammer is far easier than trying to counter it
    4
  114. Naval targets are never cheap Even the loss of a supply ship is critical blow to the enemy Remember, the USN starved the IJN by cutting off their supply lines Japan got their oil from the US till the war started then they stole it from places they captured The USN cut those lines off and IJN gradually lost the ability to operate effectively Quicksink in parallel with a ASM does the job much cheaper The key with the first strike is hitting a vital area so the enemy's defenses cant react to the Quicksink, thats either a strike in stern or a strike by the sensors to blind the target long enough The US should be trying to improve sensors so missile can target precise areas
    4
  115.  @namanmakkar7106  Russia's original plan for all Su-57 fleet and MIG-29/Su-27 but that plan has shit the bed Neither Sus or MIG are ahead they both are about the same The Sus may have enjoyed more upgrades and export but capabilities wise Both still crap Its 2024 Neither have advanced targeting pods like western aircraft AESA radars , advanced networking and weapons nada The only reason Russia is gaining ground is due Ukraine being low on ammo
    4
  116. its not a matter can ,its a must The simple fact is that US ICBMs as well SLBMs missiles despite upgrades are reaching their obsolescence While Russia and China are fielding newer missiles if the US wants to maintain a credible strategic deterrent as well mutual assured destruction posture They have to fix this program
    4
  117.  @Cody38Super  The point of B-21 is better capabilities than the B-2 which includes longer range China's whole stick going after tankers but kinda to if the tankers are operating from longer ranges than they can reach
    4
  118.  @Markus117d  Thats why you still need shell based weapons. Germany's Flakpanzer Gepard 35mm gun use a round called AHEAD which has 152 tungsten sub-projectiles They also have 30mm variant. Those sub-projectiles can shred even an hypersonic weapon
    4
  119.  @keianpena9635  Well the US did , back in 1920s LOL So Iran is only 105 years behind the rest of the world
    4
  120.  @Whiskey11Gaming  No the Super Hornet is proving why it was the better choice The F-14 had little growth while F-18 still has plenty
    4
  121. its likely going to max range test
    4
  122.  @filonin2  They dont because its too costly right now The LRASM and JASSM are too expensive for the Australia to use, its just the JDAM-ER The smart play would be expand the Rapid Dragon to cheaper weapons to make more affordable to other countries
    4
  123. Yes you are The F-18 was still the right decision Just as the F-14 went as far as it could, the F-18 has reached its peak and its time for it to be replaced
    4
  124.  @orestes1984  The AIM-174 was first seen 3 years ago carried by VX Super Hornet for initial testing and trials It was seen again by carried last year by another VX Super Hornet The USN confirmed the VFA-2 and VFA-192 carrying Initial Operating Capability (IOC) with AIM-174B during RIMPAC As I stated before The goal of the AIM-174 is countering Russian Zircon and Kinzhal as well as Chinese DF-21 and DF-26 the SM-6 range is 250 miles A Mach 10 weapon like Kinzhal and DF-21 covers that distance in 2 mins With F-18 carrying the AIM-120D is only effective against the launching aircraft not the missile With the AIM-174, its effective against both but most importantly, you can push the enemy back as far as 600 miles Giving yourself nearly 5 mins of reaction time So yes its very real
    4
  125.  @Qwiv  The limitation of the Apache are range, sensor ,speed ,time on stations and weapons A prospective AH-64F would need the same retrackable gear as the 360 to improve speed Retain the longbow radar but upgraded with AESA but also a new mount similar to the Osiris system and Mast Mounted Sight on OH-58 An Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) allow for long range passive tracking of targets And yes upgrade comms over reliance on drones and letting manned capability degrade only ends badly
    4
  126. The JAGM procurement right now its 1000 missiles The Hellfire in 2012 had an order for 24,000 missiles The US generally orders hellfires by thousands as its used by the USAF, USMC, USN, US Army and CIA What will happen is that initial procurement will be still high but as batches increase , the unit cost will decrease They can't order 10,000 missiles just yet They have been ordering Hellfires since 1974, so the Hellfire stocks needs to be depleted a bit first
    4
  127. And thats why the USAF and USN are confident in beating both Russian and Chinese air force They have more stealth aircraft for Dissimilar air combat training (DACT) than Russia and China The F-22 can practice against the F-35 for WVR and BVR combat It use the B-2 and F-117 for BVR All 4 can be used by the E-3 and E-2D to practice on spotting threats at long range as well as the EA-18G, EC-130 and EA-37 to simulate jamming
    4
  128.  @PikkuKani  Its not about the F-22 or F-35 Its about support structure if you asked how would the USAF to China or Russia's doorstep The answer would simply what asset you wanna use and we can be there in x amount of hours or days If you ask China or Russia to do the same, and answer is ,they cant The USAF has hundreds of tankers as well strategic bases outside the US allowing to get aircraft to any ones doorstep in a matter of hours China is still building its tanker fleet but its not enough for global projection Case in point, out of the blue, the USAF sent 5 B-2s to strike Yemen and for a few days afterward complete silent and fear from Yemen
    4
  129.  @trunglequoc542  Lets see A Su-57 at best can pull 12G while modern AAMs can pull over 20G but most importantly Short range AAM equip TVC control kinetic performance
    4
  130. Why would the SecDef answer questions from someone he doesnt answer to He wouldnt as Cruz sets on no military related committee
    4
  131.  @nabilbudiman  Its strange how people still called Pierre Sprey a credible sources when him and Fighter mafia were booted out of the defense industry
    4
  132. Resupply at sea is dangerous enough in optimal conditions A resupply VLS ship would require the ships to be dangerously close In optimal conditions, the USS Proteus AS-19 was able to transfer an 18 ton Polaris missile to SSBN however the SSBN was moored only a few feet away and this was done in harbor The only way this is feasible is not with the current DDG-51s but with the DDG-X The DDG-X has swappable VLS which means the entire module can be pulled out and replaced with a fresh one Resupply at see would work With the current DDG-51s and CG-47s A crane like how the Proteus had would work but it would designed so it can simultaneously crane over 8 missiles per trip SM-3, SM-6 and TLAM weight under 3 tons, its easy but for the future Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) which weights 9 tons, only 2 missiles per trip Its doable basically
    4
  133.  @williamzk9083  " F-35 operating with in flight refueling can only carry a restricted weapons load" by far , the most idiotic comment. For starters, missions are flown by however many aircraft are required for the target in question That means the strike package can range to however many is needed ating with in flight refueling can only carry a restricted weapons load. Here is the reality: Aircraft like the Su 35, Su 34 and Chendu J-20 have exceptional range and can threaten even USN/USAAF refueling operations. No, here is more idiotic comments from you The Su-34 is not designed for air to air combat and it currently getting its ass handed to it Ukranie Egypt cancelled its Su-35 order after they conducted a mock engagement with a France Rafale The Rafale able to completely suppress the Su-35 radar and its Khibiny has zero effect on Rafale The Chinese J-20 is currently working in 5th engine in 10 years so the stories about its so called range are literally a myth The rest of your post is literally non sense
    4
  134.  @gregcampbell4552  Again false information the USN has only had the F-35C operational for little over 2 years So they are still learning
    4
  135.  @Chuck_Hooks  The MIG-29 and HARM success is like everything is due to Russian incompetence The Russian MoD has repeatedly claimed that they completely neutralized Ukrainian air force yet 6 months later, they are still carrying out strikes Russian forces has all the tech necessary for integrated air defence system yet ? From the border at Kharkiv to Mariupol is 300 miles which means technically 2 S-400 should be covering yet when you work out all the distances and capabilities of the S-300 and S-400, there should be no possible way that Ukraine aircraft are flying yet they are
    4
  136.  @Spearhead45  The only quote delay with US shipbuilding with the new Constellation class which is moot considering the USN steadily pumping out far more capable and newer Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with ease
    4
  137. The fact that they are carrying different equipment pretty much explains the delay with their introduction. Lockheed needed time upgrade the airframes with newer tech so they would be more survivable in Ukraine. I was half expecting to see CFTs
    4
  138. lets wait till the test flight
    4
  139.  @zainday7173  At this point no one believes Russia's hype
    4
  140. While there no kill like overkill.The F-22 is overkill, it shouldnt stop the NGAD The fact that cost is coming up means they are not being smart about it its simple Carry over the F-22 speed , agility and cockpit visibility. Carry over the F-35 HMDS/EOTAS/DAS/ Comms , weapons capability as well as the F-22s ALR-94/F-35 ASQ For Wide area display , either F-35 or F-15EXII Lastly the F-15EX ADCP II processors. The only thing the NGAD needs new is the ADVENT engines and its design as well as the ability to carry 2 AIM-174 internally
    4
  141.  @korana6308  The critical difference is that Russia has boasted about the superiority of its air defense yet Ukraine nearly destroyed their best aircraft The US lost an F-117 but at least it went out in combat not sitting on the ground Repairing Su-57 wont be cheap and now there is word that 2 planes may have been hit insult to injury
    4
  142. The F/A XX replaces the F-18 not the F-35 Now why both USN necked down to just F-18 however the F-18 operating as a tanker burned through F-18s air frames faster than they expected. Combined with sustained operations The F-18 were heavily over worked. The F-35C gives the USN another aircraft to take the load but also gives them several more options The F-35C is stealth so the USN has aircraft that can perform various ISTAR functions by utilizing its stealth. No longer relying on the USAF for ISR or ISTAR The F-35C can use it stealth and strike the enemy's sensors allowing the F-18 to strike unhindered against targets at sea or on land with the FAXX, it will strike the enemy sensors while the F-35C delivers the killing blow Two aircraft allow for the USN to share the burden instead placing it on plane
    4
  143. Actually 100 plus miles is considered long range and the longest range variant of the ATACMS reaches 192 miles which again is long range Lastly remember that the ATACMS range was capped by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) Since then US withdrew its been making longer range variants of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) with ranges over 600 miles
    4
  144. Its not a new paradigm of air power Its just simple revelations of modern warfare F-35s backed by EA-18Gs strike the enemy defenses while simultaneously another set of F-35s having using its stealth to approach and strike the enemy's air field runways and taxiways effectively trapping the enemy's air force on the ground. while combat engineers are trying to repair the damage, a volley of 20-30 cruise missiles is minutes away to finish the job A 3rd set of F-35s targets the command and centers as well communication Why try and go toe to toe with the enemy's air force when it well timed and prepared attack can simultaneously defeat the enemy's defenses The last factor is enemy's airborne assets but if you snipe their tankers with AIM-174 on the opening move they have no choice but to pull back With their air fields destroy and no gas airborne to save them, their only realistic option is not to engage but try to run for it The role of the F-22, F-47 and FA/XX will be taking out defending fighters, tankers, AWACS and C4ISTAR aircraft allowing the F-35s to operate freely The F-35s open the door and the bombers lob cruise missiles to finish job The other factor is that ground forces are getting more mobile Special forces are making use of ATVs to carry heavy weapons. The Spike NLOS which can be launched from targets over 30 miles away can be carry via MV-22s to the battlefield They can be used in concert with air attacks as Israel did in Iran for great effect
    4
  145. Not the bomb the technology is most dangerous part because the GBU-53 seeker can be easily be fitted to larger bombs which would allow them to be launched from greater range The war in Ukraine shown that counter measures against jamming wont work and only real effective measure is destroying the jammer a 500lbs bomb fitted with JDAM-ER wing kit and GBU-seeker would a highly effective weapon in that situation
    4
  146.  @ThirdLawPair  While the QuickSink is cheap the US military should revisit the JSOW-ER The JSOW uses the BROACH which is designed for hard-target penetration but most importantly the JSOW-ER has considerably longer range up to 300 miles Improve the BROACH with larger tandem warheads but most important, upgrade the sensors so the missile can target specific areas of the ship A strike to the stern has great chance knocking out the engines completely or a target below the bridge to knock the bridge as well CIC below No more guess work with where the missile hits
    4
  147. Skynet and Legion fully endorse the USAFs plan lol
    4
  148.  @pigswhen102  Radar's ability to operate depends on several factors The biggest is the capabilities of the country its uses against Israel for example is small but has developed small 3,000lbs air deployable Spike NLOS launchers with 8 missiles The NLOS can strike target up to 16 miles away. The NLOS Tomcar is very easy to knock out enemy sites on the ground US has utilized several methods ranging from special forces, Apaches, TLAM and aircraft The newest is the ADM-160 advanced aerial decoy which can act as a decoy but also act as EW jammer F-18s and F-16s can launch them from over 300 miles and use them to provide cover while missile target the site The US from past experience in the Gulf and Balkans has also upgraded the AGM-88 into very precise weapon that can be used regardless of if the target is transmitting or even if its moving So radars operating on ground depending the country has a lot of threats AWACS problem is that low flying aircraft can close distance in the right terrain So nominally you need to be normal operation, with one sensor looking for low flight targets and other for stealth AESA radar can manage but the enemy can also jam as well Both China and Russia have long range AAM for counter awacs operation however the US relies on their aircraft intercepting them first
    4
  149.  @charlesrichardson8635  The irony of the F-117 lost was that most of the US military advances came from its loss so in essence, they did the US a huge favor First , the problem with Wild weasel and HARM was their ability to engage the target. Unless the target was actively transmitting, HARM and Wild Weasel were useless The newer AGM-88G has been upgraded into highly precise mini cruise able to engage targets both fixed and moving but most importantly regardless of transmission status. So even if the target is cold, the AGM-88G can still lock on to it. Secondly, targeting pods have been heavily upgraded and no longer restricted to certain aircraft, everyone has pods now Pods with advanced FLIR able to ID targets even hidden by camo from long range Third is networking tech Now EA-18Gs' radar and radar detectors located possible targets, they passed the information through datalinks to strike fighters As all Strike fighters have pods,they can visually confirm targets The F-117 lacked EW suite which would easily dealt with the missile whereas the F-22 and F-35 have state of the art EW Lastly, long range cruise missiles able to engage moving targets So the US gained quite a bit
    4
  150. Keeping with the Birds of prey theme it would be Kestrel either Talon
    4
  151. Yes they but they arrived too late to matter When the Gulf War started, Precision munition technology had greatly advanced and they were highly effective
    3
  152. The JAGM is good but it does not compare with the Brimstone II or Spike NLOS as far as range goes Given the increasing range of MANPADs and SHORAD systems They need to dial its range up considerably to 20 miles plus Additionally the Raytheon seeker which is EO/IR/MMW was a better option than the current SAL/MMW
    3
  153. An evolved YF-23 would look good right now With a little tweaks, it would be perfect
    3
  154. The US system have been in massive need of upgrading for a while You cant maintain credible strategic deterrent with outdated weapons
    3
  155.  @TylerSmithMusic1  That has no nothing to do with the age of the weapons The last LGM-30 was produced in 1978. Thats over 45 years ago The US military erred by retiring the newer LGM-118 as the LGM-30 was cheaper and now that has come back to bit them in the ass
    3
  156. The airframes are not worn out The countries that are donating F-16s have ample life they dont fly their aircraft like the USAF aircraft which need continuously SLEP due the high volume of flying they do Mostly, Ukraine pilots need the experience with the F-16 so when the USAF does send a few their way their pilots are already familiar
    3
  157.  @commoncents6831  Considering their limitations I would be running 1 pilot every 4 hours 10 minutes on ground for max for to change pilots fuel, weapons and quick maintenance but changing pilots every 4 hours As well as having the aircraft land at different locations so Russia forces cant get a fix where operations Keep pilots in cockpit longer will burn them out and you need all your pilots as this will be a long conflict
    3
  158. @ Lets the AIM-120 has 16 confirmed kills in combat whereas the PL-15 has zero and thats just for openers The AIM-120 is the most widely exported missiles where the PL-15 is ??
    3
  159. Actually you need the Patriot The Patriot's radar has advanced discrimination of targets at long range It can spot the drones at much longer ranges and help AA guns get in position much faster Flakpanzer Gepard radar can only see 9 miles while the Patriot can see over 60 miles away You can potentially station the Flakpanzer Gepard and other AA guns much further out Doing the drones before they reach populated areas
    3
  160.  @Warhorse469  its more than The newest WVR missiles like the AIM-9X, ASRAAM, IRIS-T and variants of R-73/74 are capable of lock-on after launch (LOAL) as well off-boresight capability As long as the pilot can see his opponent in the merge, he can shoot without having to get nose on AIM-9X block 1 can engage up 90s off-boresight capability as dos the ASRAAM The R-74 is 75 off-boresight capability. The IRIS-T has off-boresight capability but not real clear on how much So the first question is whether or no the F-16s Ukraine will get will include the helmet mounted sights for off-boresight capability My money is yes. The AIM-7, AIM-9 and AIM-120 all US made dominate because they decades of actually combat under their belt Newer missiles like the Python-5, MICA. ASRAAM and IRIS-T have limited to no combat experience ASRAAM and IRIS-T are seeing but not for aircraft but from ground systems I got vegas money that Ukrainian F-16s will get Python-5, MICA. ASRAAM and IRIS-T as well Meteor missiles For one, Lockheed can speed up integration to days and two most importantly, the potential of their missile KOing a Su-35 or possible even Su-57 would a massive ego booster Israel showed an AIM-9X intercepting cruise missile. Russia's ego was also crushed when they tried to after Patriot and it smoked the Kinzhal Imagine how bad if any of those missiles did the same
    3
  161. Apart from the fact that they have long range cruise missiles able to attack the S-400 from over 300 miles or the fact that Russia operated units in Syria in plain view of US intel gathering aircraft since 2015 or the units operating in Ukraine, again ,in plain view of the US intel gathering assets
    3
  162. The point of having credible strategic deterrent shows the enemy that if they attack, they will take serious damage in the process or it would be mutual assured destruction If Ukraine was still in possession of its nuclear arsenal, Russia would have never attacked. Moscow is only 500 miles away from Kyiv. There is no way they could prevent Ukraine from launching a nuclear strike against Moscow so Russia woulnt have taken the risk
    3
  163. Simple they cant
    3
  164.  @daeladub  Simple F-35s in stealth uses SiaW or MAKO against the enemies defenses B-21 loaded with GBU-39 and GBU-53s follows up GBU-39s against the taxiway and runways GBU-53 against aircraft parked or moving Alternatively, you can 500bs JDAMs but the GBU-39 are lighter and more can carry carried The GBU-53 are also more precise its just easier hitting them on the ground
    3
  165. There is nothing about massive about both V-280 is the only real option for the FLRAA as the USMC, USAF and USN has demonstrated the effectiveness of tiltrotors The Army is only one not onboard with tilt rotors The S-97 is unlikely to win unless they improve its payload
    3
  166.  @Fng_1975  False The F-14 weight issues was never addressed in any of the projected variants The F-18 E/F empty weight was 10,000lbs less then F-14 and even at MTOW, the F-18E/F was still considerably lighter The F-14 variants would have had to shred 10,000lbs to 20,000lbs of weight in order to be real option Quote ". The ST21's gross weight would have also increased, " What it boils down was Grumman was not address the F-14 weight issues
    3
  167.  @megazombiekiller9000  You forget titanium, aluminum, and carbon fiber are lighter and stronger The support around the gun is likely titanium GAU-22 is electric not hydraulic. As for the electronics and targeting for the gun, its all integrated What you are describing is the 4th gen on down which used federated systems As you stated, each piece tech has its set of systems The 5th gen and 4.5 gen uses integrated systems where everything is integrated As for complexity to mount not a problem ,computers allow precise computations Lastly Valuable space, Thats why 5th and 4.5 use integrated systems Instead of FCS, ECC, LCOSS and other you have a hard drive and written software The gun is simple. One, not every target needs a missile, the gun can limit collateral damage. For stealth aircraft, that gun port is considerably smaller than the weapons bays Two, Digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) and Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) are advanced countermeasures against missiles DRFM can blind radar guided missiles while DIRCM can blind IR homing missiles Even in WVR, both can provide a measure of defense where there is nothing you can do about a gun except try to dodge Three, shell tech has advanced greatly and guns can do more damage with considerably less rounds The Semi-armor-piercing high explosive incendiary (SAPHEI) combines both HE and AP rounds into one Best of both in one round. We also seeing more and more programmable rounds Modern tech is making the gun far more accurate and lethal than previous generations
    3
  168. The Rapid Dragon concept can work off carriers, just not with C-130 It would have to be with MV-22s using the smaller JSM two pack launcher for JASSM and LRASM four pack for JSM
    3
  169.  @高橋澄一  The AIM-120 has actually combat experience hence why its the best selling BVR missile in the West. Ukraine will likely get EU Meteor and French MICA with their F-16s simply to get actually combat usage. A western WVR or BVR missile bagging a Russian aircraft will a massive boost for which every weapon does and even worst if its MIG-31 or Su-35 that gets shot down
    3
  170.  @Qwiv  Wrong You can't defeat MANPADs if you let them see you, Like fixed wing aircraft , you defeat them by denying a target hence why the Army is pushing for ATGMs able to be carried by helos but with range similar to what fixed wing aircraft can carry The UK Brimstone and Israeli Spike NLOS give Helos the range to engage targets without ever getting range The only SHORAD that outranges them is the Russian Buk-M3 at 43 miles and Chinese HQ-6 at 37 miles You are also forgetting that in Ukraine, MANPADs have also brought down fixed aircraft well Secondly your statement about the US testing stealth against MANPADS is moot Ukraine has provided the US looks at Russian defenses both SHORAD and MANPADs in use as well captured units. As China only copies, their tech is not much better In a peer to peer, engagement things very very different
    3
  171.  @Qwiv  And trying to over rely on drones only ends badily
    3
  172.  @terrymichael5821  LITENING not likely but LANTRIN because the tech is much older
    3
  173.  @Leon1Aust  Again To test out anti-stealth radars, the US has F-22s, F-35s, B-2s F-117s and number of MQ/RQs drones as well as the B-21 at their disposal So detecting the J-20 isnt problem for the US When you have that many assets to use adjusting the software so X band can lock on isnt that hard
    3
  174. Its not adapting, its just bad decision making. The USAF ended up with less F-22 because of cost While the F-35 has better capabilities, its no F-22 and odds of it mixing it up with a Su-57 or J-20/J-31 are not that great The NGAD needs to be an evolved F-22s with F-35 capabilties but better engine, sensors and avionics
    3
  175. Here's the rub, the Su-57 was massively delayed due to numerous technical problems Russia had plans for hundreds was continuously revised downwards as the project was hit with delay after delay The ones that being made are not even the ones they wanted , they basically the scapegoat variants made to save the project from being cancelled out right as well as to save face Russia wont get a high capable variant till the Su-57M enters production These early models will likely be trainers for the most part
    3
  176.  @petersmythe6462  Kinetic performance only matters up close
    3
  177.  @macmcgee5116  its not that lines will be blurred, its going back to the old school concept of bombers being able to defend themselves Remember bombers use to use MG and HMG to defend themselves. Fighters with large caliber cannons made that moot as well as the missile age The key for next generation is asset denial AWACS and SAM site radar are the only real problems The MIG-31 has a long range radar but that only sees part of the sky whereas AWACS has just 360 visibility Without radar from AWACS or on the ground, your ability to counter an attacking force greatly hampered
    3
  178. Good idea but should replace the cargo door with launcher able to launch various types of munitions
    3
  179. No no and hell no The F-15E was absolutely the better choice. Its room for growth has been incredible. It can carry IRST, Targeting and the newer Dragon eye pod without any adverse effect on its payload The A-12 and YF-12 like the SR-71 simply would required too much effort to maintain. The F-14 proposed variants would not have changed anything. The F-14 was too overweight for carrier operations. While the proposed variants improved capabilities, its weight was still very much remained a problem Unlike the F-15E, the F-14 had very little room to grow. As for the YF-23 I could it see as updated as a 5.5th or possibly 6th gen aircraft with minimal design changes bubbly canopy, enlarged weapons bay able to carry 2 x JASSM, or LRASM or JSOW with four AIM-120s, the F-22s ALR-94 ,F-35 AAQ-37/40 and 1900/TR AESA radar
    3
  180. its definitely worst on all levels Russia's unwillingness to commit it to Ukraine shows how little faith they have in it Ukraine has the very defenses its designed to evade
    3
  181. Its still very much in use and likely been heavily upgraded since then
    3
  182. A prospective 7th gen would be like the movie stealth and Dark Star from Top gun Maverick Ability to travel worldwide in a moments notice Able to travel from the US to EU in under a hour . In pacific, it would able to reach Guam with in 1 hour and half Able to carry a mix of air to air weapons. Advanced variant of the AIM-9X , AIM-260 for self defense and a prospective AIM-6. and AIM-104 The USN is experiment with the SM-6 for aircraft to carry and Lockheed has proposed AIM variant of the MIM-104 patriot. The advantage both is prospectively shooting down enemy hypersonic weapons for ballistic missile defense and lastly laser weapon carried internally , personnel, I would opt for 30mm cannon with programmable rounds on one side and the laser weapon on the other
    3
  183. Not likely For C and C, the USN would need to be carrier capable. One of the strengths of the carrier is that it has a lot organic capabilities like aerial refueling, AWACS, EW and ASW it has what it needs on hand at all times The growing range of air to air missiles and the lack of stealth for aerial refueling, AWACS, EW and ASW platforms is a problem but the B-21 isnt really the solution
    3
  184. Its not a problem. Its idiotic Last time I checked, the USAF ended uo with less F-22 because of cost. The thought was the less expensive F-35 at time could fill the F-22s shoes and that was proven to be false so why go down that road again when you know how it ends Stay the course with NGAD
    3
  185. It wasn't mixed The F-35 operate with their ADSB and radar reflectors in that that area The J-20 doesnt bother the US in the slightest
    3
  186. The F-22 lacks helmet mounted sights which has been a major thorn as other aircraft have HMD/HMS but at the end of day, people need to realize that training exercises are one thing actual combat situations is a very different
    3
  187.  @fivestringslinger  The F-15/16/18 were considered expensive for their day and they have a fraction of the technology that F-22 and F-35 has The F-22 is different because the USAF did cram in quite a bit. Ironically they also took out a bit as well I know the F-15 was 20 mil per plane , the rest I am not sure about
    3
  188.  @jamesstreet228  Hypersonic weapons have made the MALD as moot as the S-400 a Mach 5 weapon covers 250 miles in 4 minutes , at Mach 10, its just 2 mins EW can easily suppress an S-400 for minutes or less without needing MALD
    3
  189.  @samsonsoturian6013  Its doesnt change anything because its facts The entire point of longer range weapons is to able to attack without having to contend with the enemy's defenses An S-400 missile range is 250 miles , I can launch a JASSM-B from a C-130 275 miles away and still reach targets as far 295 miles away I can leave that C-130 at long range and draw the enemy interceptors while stealthy F-35 penetrate What those fighters think is a defenseless targets is actually a C-130 decoying them into range with F-22s The EC-130 operated as airborne jammer for decades. The KC-130 continues to operate as airborne tanker as the AC-130 as airborne gunship and MC-130 for special operations
    3
  190.  @I_Stand_With_RussiaZOV  Ukraine did not there genius The quote 4000 aircraft were was massive fields of outdated and scrap aircraft from the 80s and late 90s when Ukraine was part of Soviet Russia After they separated and Russia was no longer paying the bills for those aircraft, Ukraine's air force substantial dropped off from thousands to a few hundred Then after their falling out in 2004, Ukraine was no able to secure parts and assistance for their air force and it dropped to just a handful of aircraft
    3
  191. For countries with extremely cold environments, they use drag chutes religiously. The other advantage is that it reduces wear and tear on the brakes For the F-35 to compete with 4th gen ,it has been able to do everything they can do The Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) has noted that while the F-35 is more expensive, they have found to be substantially easier to operate in cold environment than the F-16 I believe thats more due to the F-35 being a flying supercomputer and cold allows its processors to operate more efficiently
    3
  192. B-21 carrier Nope Revive the X-47B yes
    3
  193.  @Spearhead45  The USN has the SM-6 IB in final testing as well the newly revealed AIM-174. Both of which plus the CEC, C2BMC program have effectively negated any threats from hypersonic weapon both Russian and Chinese,
    3
  194.  @Spearhead45  And that matters because, oh wait it doesnt. In potential engagement in the Pacific, its USN carrier based aircraft salvoing LRASM against Russia or Chinese surface ships There is no going ship to ship. In the Atlantic , there USAF land based bombers have an easier time striking targets , again no ship vs ship so ship yards being behind is literally moot.
    3
  195.  @area51z63  Wrong on all counts, stealing plans doesnt give you anything Chinese quote anti stealth capabilities are based on stolen data, and the limited testing that they can do with the J-20 , FC-31 and J-35 The US anti stealth capabilities is based on data from several projects as well testing they can do with the B-2, F-117, F-22 and F-35 The key point is the availability of much more aircraft that incorporates different designs and capabilities allows for more effective Dissimilar air combat training (DACT) than China . Having data is moot. The F-35 supposed downtime is literally moot. In potential engagement against Russia or China, JASSM , LRASM and uncle TLAM will be doing the most work. Only second to EA-18G, EC-130 , Rivet Joint and Combat Sent
    3
  196.  @snugglecity3500  True outgoing signals can be tracked but AESA makes that harder to do as its LPI Additionally ,the EA-18 uses INCANS Interference Cancellation system which allows for comms to work while jamming The NGJ pods can tune the jamming more efficiently so interferes less with friendly systems and focus solely on the enemy
    3
  197.  @justsomemainer1384  There was single engine aircraft on carriers ,however the USN was trying to get away from them as engine technology was not as mature as it is today During that time, engine were notoriously under powered and unreliable. Even the F-14s initial engines were problematic The F-35 is different because engine technology is very reliable now
    3
  198. That would be false The Chinese program relies on massive DF launchers which the US military can easily target with their hypersonic weapons The ARRW for example design speed is Mach 20 with range of 1000 miles Even from 800 miles , away , once located, the DF launcher would only have 3 mins to move The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) is Mach 17 with 1700 mile range even at 1000 miles, the DF would have 5 mins So how far can 17 ton 35 foot long launcher travel in 3 to 5 mins , 4 miles at most So Chinese either has move them inland which reduces their at sea or range or build up defense around which paints giant bullseye on them The Type-055s has the YJ-21 but Mk-48s from SSNs can easily deal with PLAN Type-055 Which just leaves the PLAAF Xian H-6 carrying a 1 single DF each again not problem Russia's Tu-22M3M and MIG-31 carry the Kinzhal they can launch from long range but that only works in the USN favor From 1200 miles , that gives the USN 10 mins of reaction time for its defenses To avoid USN aircraft, they would have stay over 800 miles away Again still 6 mins The only weapon that is potential problem is the Zircon as its submarine launched and from 100 miles away, the USN would only 52 seconds While hypersonic under certain conditions are nearly impossible, the emphasis is they nearly but not unstoppable
    3
  199. The F-16 didnt change air combat, it just brought forth the era of multi role design
    3
  200. No so sure The applications , or rather the actual real world application is advanced propulsion for travel to Mars Travel is currently impractical due to current level of space propulsion Such a system could in theory shorten travel times
    3
  201. its certainly an interesting question So many proposed designs have been popping up, no one really knows for sure till we see the prototype roll out its just easier to wait then keep guessing
    3
  202. The F-35 can do its own EW but it doesn't have to While Jaguar sounds impressive, the US still massively ahead of it
    3
  203.  @totalnerd5674  The CMV-22B is better because first its considerably newer platform. The C-2 has been out of production since the 80s, They get a lot of newer tech and greatly reduced and improved maintenance Secondly CMV-22B retains aerial refueling capability which C-2 didn't have . It also adds a multi-sensor payload pod similar the V-22s FLIR Lastly , It has considerably greater flexibility than C-2 The USMC is working on kit to make their MV-22s into tankers which the CMV-22s could also use as non-traditional tanker
    3
  204.  @totalnerd5674  E-2 and C-2 both lacked air to air refueling? The E-2D has it now but as the C-2 has been out of production, adding it would be challenge The USN gets a lot with the V-22s Ultimately, the MH-60 will still be the preferred asset for other operations because its considerably smaller and can fit on hangars of smaller ships
    3
  205. @@phillipbanes5484 Its more than 1
    3
  206.  @oot007  About half actually Initial yes but after Gulf and the Balkans
    3
  207.  @brandony8691  How it is unmatched when the F-22 easily out rates with TVC and the F-15 with shear thrust to weight
    3
  208. The real reason is the US has denied Taiwan more advanced tech due the fear of it falling into Chinese hands and this incident only reinforces that fear If China got the CH-47 ,its bonus but even if they didnt , they still win because this incident will reinforce the fear of tech falling into Chinese hands
    3
  209.  @papanam4267  The problem with the QuickSink is ts range is 50 miles. That's well within range of most ships defenses and only usable if the target defenses are down You need something that can precisely strike the ship in a vital area first then follow through with QuickSink
    3
  210.  @ParZIVal19D  i wont hit the panic button till I see early model HK
    3
  211. Quote those of congressional critics of prior flawed programs, the B-21 has avoided major cost overruns and delays thanks to disciplined program management (though the first flight did get pushed back by six months). And in a real jaw-dropper, the program has reportedly come in under its $25 billion budget. Factoring in inflation, it’s half the price of the exorbitantly expensive B-2 stealth bomber it’s meant to replace Cry harder
    3
  212. Propaganda The fun fact about the Growler is that the USN has far easier ways to sink Chinese ships so they wouldnt need to use the Growler but importantly hypersonic weapons has changed that aspect To cover 300 miles, TLAMs need at least 34 plus minutes , A Growler cant suppress Chinese defenses for that long Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) can cover that same distance in 3 mins. A growler can easily suppress Chinese defenses for that long Also realize that the EA-18G is still using the legacy ALQ-99 and still in the process of fielding the newer Next Generation Jammer That program has only fielded the Mid-Band pods, the high and low bands are still in testing So the PLAN may likely be able to overcome the older ALQ-99s pods but not the newer NGJ pods
    3
  213.  @charlesrichardson8635  Serbian defenses survived by staying cold and only transmitting for short period as well inadequacy of NATO SEAD
    3
  214.  @charlesrichardson8635  He got lucky then but with the advancements made because of it, Modern weapons would smoke him hundreds of miles away even if his site cold
    3
  215.  @fredricksmith-something.2125  Not really US forces EU and in the middle east Literally the only country that China could put a base that would be bother the US is in Venezuela But even then , Puerto Rico is 811 miles and the US could easily station weapons able to hit Venezuela from PR
    3
  216. The problem with Shin Godzilla is the plot armor The US wouldnt just send B-2 with MOPs against Shin Godzilla as the bomb can be carried by B-1s and B-52 secondly they would launch massive simultaneously coordinated strike with USAF, USN and USMC forces
    3
  217. Its called DSMAC – Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation and Automatic target recognition (ATRU) and both been around since the 90s The newer Naval Strike Missile and AGM-158C LRASM both have advanced sensors based off the earlier DSMAC and ATRU Radar locks are coming back due to advancements with millimeter-wave (MMW) technology
    2
  218.  @Abdullah-mn6sw  That's the F-35 not the B-21 The F-35 does not have optionally manned Secondly the B-21 network-centric warfare capabilities are far superior to the F-35
    2
  219.  @Abdullah-mn6sw  Optionally manned bombers are designed to fly complex missions whereas what exactly is Black Hawk doing?
    2
  220.  @krashdown5814  Thats not aerial refueling.
    2
  221.  @Gearparadummies  The F-35 is only one in its class The J-20 and Su-57 literally dont compare
    2
  222.  @Gearparadummies  The F-22 was designed solely for air to air not multi role like the F-35 The F-22s air ground much like the J-20 very limited The Su-57 is just a mess all together
    2
  223. Thats why DEW weapons will work along side and not replace shell based weapon
    2
  224. How about no There was no humiliation in Afghanistan The US had control of Afghanistan for the better part of 20 years and it became moot to stay any longer And how bad of price has Russia paid for that invasion
    2
  225.  @toasteroven6761  Again not economical to bring that equipment back. 1 C-5 can hold up 16 Humvees whereas Roll on/off ship can hold upwards of 8000 vehicles 1 C-5 can carry up 140 tons whereas ships can carry upwards of 400,000 tons its simple math The amount of flights needed to bring that stuff back completely was no worth the expense its economically feasible vs economically infeasible and there was no literally justification that would have made bringing everything back economically feasible Again economics not priorities. Wrong,the equipment stateside storage is in better condition than equipment that been sitting in Afghanistan for decades and that sells much better than trying to offer scraps from Afghanistan nevertheless, the Taliban got scrap from the US. There were several cases of equipment going missing hence the US never allowed Afghanistan to get any advanced from the or anyone else. They made sure that whatever they got, was not a gold mine. Case in point, Ukraine has handed over several highly advanced pieces of Russian equipment to the US. Most notably several pieces from Khibiny EWS ,Krasukha EWS fully intact Panstir S1 as well T-90s. That type of equipment is worth the expense to bring back due to its value, Afghanistan never gotten anything of value You are basically talking nonsense at this point its economically feasible vs economically infeasible The claim was made that US left billions of dollars of equipment behind but no one ever looked at what was actually left behind just heard a big number
    2
  226. The F-16s growth as far as things go, there is very little room to grow The only possible for the USAF to keep the F-16 is make Growler variant of like the EA-18G to give the USAF their own escort jammer like the USN. Beyond that, the F-35 pretty eliminates the need for the F-16
    2
  227.  @bryonslatten3147  As far reallocate resources The USAF needs to replace its RC-135s with newer RC-767 variant as well buy MQ-20s
    2
  228. Frankly if an adversary gets that close, then F-35 and F-22 havent done their job correctly.
    2
  229.  @196cupcake  Cheap doesnt mean effective
    2
  230.  @loafoffloof3420  The US doesnt do quantity and the simple fact is that A-10 is very past its day
    2
  231. It depends if they are blended with minimal space then no but if they are like the J-20 then yes
    2
  232.  @roddersh5396  No copium just facts The B-21 is most advanced bomber built
    2
  233.  @brianboye8025  Wrong on both counts The Army ended the FARA because of short sighted individuals. Drones can be hacked , pilots cant. Bell 360 Invictus design was also being as the AH-64F The addition of TAD/PVS. a newer radar and other changes would have given the Army newer and slicker Apache at lower cost in both programs The USAF pausing the NGAD is smarter because they can carry off the USN FA/XX program and reduce overall cost
    2
  234. The simple fact is that not economical One class of boats simplifies things. While the Los Angeles, Seawolf , Virginia , Ohio and Columbia are different classes, they are all nuclear so training , maintenance and other factors are relatively cheaper The time about AIP and diesel is that they require considerably time to refuel and carry substantially less weapons Few navies can cross the pond if you are worried about smugglers and drug runners The way to solve that isnt with subs The Coast Guard should be given 20 RQ-4 and 20 MQ-4C as well 60 MQ-20s The RQ-4 can monitor an area the same of South Korea in a day so 3 to Alaska , 3 to West Coast 2 Texas and 3 to East coast They backed by MQ-4C which patrol over the water which can easily detect nacro subs The MQ-20 strike with small MK-81 250lbs bombs fitted with laser seekers If you start sinking boats, you will find less people willing to volunteer for the narco runs
    2
  235. Adding tanks should happen but only when ferrying aircraft from point to point not for combat usage The point of enhanced performance engine Growth Option 1/2 F-135 and the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) is doing more with less The enhancements are designed so the F-35 travels further and faster using less fuel No need for extra tanks and the extra weight 4th aircraft needed external tanks and CFTs to feed their very hungry engines Secondly the point of Joint Strike Missile ,GBU-53s, AGM-179 JAGMs and Stand-in Attack Weapon as well the potential powered JDAM is lighter but lethal The go to weapons for the 4th gen was the 500lbs,1000bs and 2000bs GBUs, 700lbs AGM-65 Maverick and 1500lbs Harpoon All great weapons but still very heavy for strike aircraft to use. The newer generation of weapons do the same job but able to be carried in larger numbers but still a lighter load than the 4th gen 6 JAGMs is 650lbs compared to 4200lbs just for 6 AGM-65s 16 GBU-53s is 3200lbs compared 8000lbs for 16 500lbs GBU-12s/38s Since the aircraft carrying lighter loads, their fuel economy is far better Adding tanks for combat is a step back not forward if they really want a fuel pod, then, they should look at the enclosed weapons pod (EWP) from the Advanced hornet program The pod is designed to be stealthy but also able to a variety of weapons instead of wasting space simply for fuel, make the EWP multi function able to carry fuel ,weapons decoys, EW
    2
  236. Both China and Russia cut corners to develop their hypersonic weapons however I believe that ARRW cancellation was calculated risk The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) is moving forward to operational status
    2
  237.  @williamzk9083  Wrong on all counts The S-400 range is 400km but F-15E can launch JASSM-ER from over 900KM plus. The Typhoon with Storm Shadow is 560KM and the Tornado with KEPD-350 500KM 400KM does not stop anyone. Secondly C4ISTAR assets like AWACS and Tankers say longer ranges. The newer AWACS aircraft radar range is over 600km so they are not affected by the S-400. Again newer aircraft have longer combat radius so tankers don't have to as close any more As for differences between the PAC and AEGIS in the regardless to the S-400, its literally moot The US has Atlantic and Pacific as oceans as natural defenses. Russia can barely send aircraft in each ocean Even attacking Alaska is moot, Russian need systems like the S-400 as they are literally surrounded
    2
  238. The S-400 claim was that is 250 mile range , ability to engage both TLAMs and AGM-86s CALCM and AESA radar made it invulnerable to attack Technology has advanced and effectively render the S-400 moot The USN stated that it required 3 EA-18G with the legacy ALQ-99 pods would be able to suppress the S-400 whereas 1 EA-18G with Next Generation Jammer could do what previous required 3 planes with multiple pods Secondly the AGM-88G ability to be carried by F-35 internally ,Mach-4 speed and 190 mile range means that EA-18G only needs to suppress the S-400 3 to 5 min max Lastly, the development of hypersonic weapons also makes the S-400 moot The ARRW AGM-183A designed speed is Mach 20 but even at Mach 5 , the EA-18G would still only have to suppress the S-400 for 4 mins The long range weapons and advance jamming means that its even harder for the MIG-31 or Su-35 to get in range
    2
  239. A prospective F-22C would use the F-35s DAS, as well as HMD, better radar and most importantly it would add the F-35 EOTS allowing it to use laser guided weapons A much needed improvement would be redesigned self defense bays able to carry up 4 AIM-9s or 2 AIM-120s as well upgraded to 25mm gun
    2
  240.  @synesthesia00  The musk rat needs to stay in his lane
    2
  241. No, it wont The B-2 and B-1 are too expensive to operate so the USAF needs to consolidate to the B-21 to save cost if there is something in the works, it will be something that can mirror the B-52s capabilities
    2
  242. 1000 percent
    2
  243. of course it did its stealth and operating it secret was piece of cake for the USAF
    2
  244.  @justicehenrydamian475  Yes mobile ICBMs with 100 ways to fail
    2
  245.  @Rabarbarzynca  Targeting those bombers can be done with ATACMS Ukraine has to SAMS to target those bomber They just need to organize their defenses better Russian forces may be heavily dispersed but their supply lines are not Secondly a 2000lbs strike their forces like the Su-34 with UMPK will have the same effect on Russian forcs
    2
  246.  @xisotopex  Thats why I mentioned that the PAVEWAY can be dropped from over 9 miles away MANPADS are 3-5 miles. Russia's Verba maxs out 4 miles Honestly Ukraine should be offering 300K-500K with options for former F-16 pilots and WSOs to fly sorties for them 12-20 good pilots who are already familiar with western weapons and tactics
    2
  247.  @Rabarbarzynca  Try they are earlier models but most have received Mid-Life Update (MLU) so they are capable
    2
  248. I wouldnt say that If you pair an EA-18G with the next generation jammer , a F-18F with the HACM and a stealth F-35 with SIAW cracking defenses would be an issue EA-18G lays down jammer while the F-18 fires an HACM, from 300 miles away, time to target is just 3 mins In this case, the target is the S-400 command truck truck The F-35 uses SiAW to target the radar and launchers effectively neutralizing the site A second strike is simultaneously attacking any enemy air fields F-18F send HACM against radar and comms while the F-35s use SIAW on the taxiway and runways This where MC-130s carrying powered JDAMs comes in It can in theory launch 20 PJDAM in 500lbs range and completely destroy the runway effectively pinning the enemy air force on the ground
    2
  249. For Iran , its the pinnacle of naval warfare For the rest of the developed , its floating skate park
    2
  250. NORAD has been tracking Santa since the 60s and still cant get him
    2
  251.  @JENKEM1000  The AIM-174 goal is Kinzhal, Zircon and DF-21/26 weapons
    2
  252.  @Whiskey11Gaming  The F-18 was the better choice, its that simple By the time the F-15 entered service, the USAF was already working on the F-15C The USN problem which ultimately doomed the F-14 was clutter Carrier decks were littered with F-4 still as well A-6, A-7, RA-4/5/8, EA-3B. EA-6 and KA-6 Simple put kiddo There USN had so much clutter on the deck, they were never able to focus clearly The F-15 got a massive boost during the Gulf while the F-14 get coffin nails Those coffins why none of the upgrade programs were considered then of course there was the famous incident where 2 F-18s loaded with both guided by E-2 downed 2 MIGs , dropped on target and returned to ship validating the F-18s design Had the F-14 performance been the same or better during Gulf it would have had the support it needed
    2
  253. There are problems no doubts but benefits greatly outweigh that
    2
  254. Honesty dont see why not Russia and China did it in Korea and again in Vietnam Its no uncommon to have merc pilots I mean honestly if I was Ukraine, I would be using money to see if there are former F-16s pilots willing to fly combat sorties Offer them 300K-500K with various options They just need 12 good pilots that can quickly refamiliarize themselves They are the one would can do SEAD as well have enough training to dogfight Russian forces when needed
    2
  255. Simple answer is not quite yet Tactics and weapons have advanced and its more efficient to knock out the enemies assets on the ground than fighting them in the air Using EW assets to disrupt the enemies radar while cruise missiles attack the base. Depending on size of the runway, and number of defenses 15 missiles normally is enough to put it out of action . While combat engineers can repair the damage to runway. those aircraft are still trapped on ground defenseless which allows attacking aircraft time to get close enough with bombs and finish the job Depending on assets, they may just target them with missiles. AWACS, Aerial tankers , transports and EW assets targets that militaries would expend a cruise missile on because of the significant loss of capabilities it would be the enemy Most of your aerial combat is going to be from bases stationed deeper in enemy territory that attacking forces can't easily reach but even then ,they are still going to try their best to catch them on ground than in air.
    2
  256.  @Fng_1975  No you did not The Navy admiralty never liked the F-14 because they argued that it took money away from their budget for more ships- False First ships, subs and, aircraft all have completely different pots of money that they draw from and second most importantly, aircraft considerably cheaper than ships Boeing received a $4 billion contract to deliver 78 Block III Super Hornets Under the defense funding bill, the US plans to spend $4.9 billion for three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in 2022 $3.45 billion per unit w/ VPM for Block V Virginia class sub There are no figures on the exact cost of the Spruance class but Burke was 778mil- 1.8b early estimate F-14D was estimated at 74 mil per copy 37 were built new which is 2.7B How many ships could the USN build for 2.7B in late 80s dollars, Depending on class, in some cases 1 ship hence why they completely different pots of money Now the USN problems with its aircraft in the 80s was clutter They F-4s, A-7Es ,A-6E, KA-6D, EA-6Bs, RA-5Cs, S-3s, RF-8s, F-18s, EA-3B an F-14 and even some cases A-4s The money problem had nothing to do with ships but rather simple too many types of aircraft in service overlapping They didn't resolve that problem till the Super Hornet program in the 90s if they had necked down say 1981 to 1983 Its likely that F-14 would have been updated as much as the F-15 was
    2
  257. No, the Marines are looking to the MQ-9 for expeditionary operations in the pacific They need various capabilities such EW, ISR and AWACS. The MQ-9 STOL can keep pace with the Marines for rapid relocation hence why they are trying to expand its capabilites
    2
  258. The simple answer is not every target needs a missile
    2
  259.  @megazombiekiller9000  That would be incorrect Advantages in technology as well advantages in materials, testing and more importantly computer design has greatly reduced the weight of weapons The biggest factor is the improvements in round design The semi-armor-piercing high-explosive incendiary (SAPHEI) and other newer rounds do more damage in less rounds
    2
  260. ​ @megazombiekiller9000  Its not propaganda, its simple facts. DFRM and DIRCM can blind missiles while the gun only needs to pilot get in range Not every target needs a missile. The GAU-22 has two configurations. For internal mounted system , its completely electric For externally mounted gun pod configuration, yes its needs all 3 hydraulic, electric, and pneumatic The USN position is completely different from the USAF. With the USN weight drives everything for carrier aircraft and if they can save a little weight with a removable system , they will Again you can do more with less with SAPHEI rounds The F-35 has 180 rounds and your point ? Thats the norm right now That cracking was supports not being manufactured to specs not a design issue YT F-35A Gun Fires 181 Rounds The gun wasnt just put it and call it down This is repeatedly till failure
    2
  261.  @megazombiekiller9000  The Eurofighter and Gripen use the Mauser 27mm with 120-150s rounds The Rafale GIAT 30mm is 150 rounds The F-18E/F carries 412 rounds vs 578 on the F-18 The F-15, F-16 and F-22s remain unchanged However the point is the 4.5 gen are getting less rounds because they can do more with less Weight is not consideration for the USAF. The F-111s for example for the USAF weighed 47K weight with gross of 82K and MTOW 100 The F-111B weight 46K, gross 79k and MTOW 88K yet the USN flatly rejected the F-111B as being over weight There are several instances where USAF aircraft are considerably heavier than USN Its called miss ile for a reason
    2
  262. It very true that Iraqi forces were combat veterans but that ultimately didnt help them due to the major differences in equipment The T-72 armor , ammunition and sensor was vastly inferior to the Abrams. Its has been stated that it would have been different if Iraq has the newest T-72s however the majority of Iraqi armor was destroyed by aircraft. So even with the best T-72, that still would mean nothing to AGM-65 and GBU-12 that US aircraft were dropping on Iraqi armor
    2
  263. @Juan Cisneros Producing an aircraft for the USAF/USN and USMC is not that diffcult. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing wrong the F-35 program The only real mistake is the differences between the F-35A and F-35C The F-35B was always going to be different but they went a lot overboard with the F-35A and F-35C There are far too many differences between those models
    2
  264.  @whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707  The planes for this job JAS-39 F-18 F-16 The JAS-39 is best choice. Gripen is designed for force dispersal and can be serviced with a small amount of personnel and vehicles as well able operate off roads its a lightweight powerhouse with access to everything Ukraine needs but doesnt exist in the numbers that Ukraine needs. The F-18 like the Gripen checks all the boxes but numbers and condition of flyable airframes is a problem Which narrows it down to the F-16 Other key points Taking out the Black Sea Feet can be done with ease with JAS-39, F-18 and F-16, the A-10 not so much Russia has moved its operations from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk JAS-39, F-18 and F-16 can attack Novorossiysk with stand off munitions but most importantly, if they time it right, they can catch the Kilo class in port Trying to use the A-10 in that role is impossible
    2
  265. The key is expanding the range and capabilities of the JDAM The powered JDAM range is 185 miles. Make so that it can fitted with 500, 1000 and 2000lbs warhead and reuse the GBU-53 seeker They should be able to keep cost to 300K-400K which makes much more affordable to use
    2
  266. USAF's is problem is that despite being considered the smartest of the branches, they are still bone dead stupid There are two few F-22s and they want to cry cost on the NGAD if they carry over tech from the F-15EX, F-22 and F-35, cost wont be problem The F-15EX Advanced Display Core Processor II (ADCP II) and Wide area display. The F-22s cockpit design , speed and agility. The F-35's HMDS/DAS/EOTS/EODAS/ASQ and weapons capability The only things that need to be new is the design and engines
    2
  267. This was just the USN dusting off the AGM-78s and AIM-97 and modernizing it The goal of the AIM-174 is countering Russian Zircon and Kinzhal as well as Chinese DF-21 and DF-26 F-18s carrying 2 missiles backed by E-2D is lethal combo against missile threats I would wager that the USN likely looking to improve both the F-35 and F-18 radars to able to self target those targets
    2
  268.  @johnsilver9338  its more cost effective than both because the USN can simply add it to the existing SM-6 buy The USAF may buy the LREW or LRAAM for the F-15EX
    2
  269.  @orestes1984  Used regularly I would say yes The red sea crisis is literally the perfect testing spot for right now Both SM-6 and SM-3 have performed as expected so far
    2
  270.  @高橋澄一  No, the AIM-120 has over a dozen confirmed kills whereas the PL-15 is all paper
    2
  271.  @Qwiv  In Iraq and Afghan , Apaches and Cobra took heavy losses because they were doing the exactly what Russian KA-52s and Mi-28s are doing Getting up close to where the enemy can engage them The Apache was upgraded to be able receive real time video from UAVs .allowing them see areas without having to get up close or unmask Secondly the Hellfire was upgraded with new warhead for engaging personnel and other soft targets as well GPS autopilot allowing them missiles to act like JDAMs Russian forces have yet to display anything like that , the best they have done so far is a few LMUR missiles but they have too few aircraft to use them Lastly, the Apache's latest addition is the JAGM and Spike NLOS The JAGM has been tested to 9 miles which is well outside MANPAD range and the Spike NLOS up 20 miles which outside of the range of MANPAD and even some SHORADs And yes thanks to Ukraine, the Army does want missile able to engage SHORADs Panstir, Tunguska, Tor Buk missile system
    2
  272.  @tylerparker4010  Ukraine situation is that they have no options The US military has endless options
    2
  273.  @Defective1313  Designed to use commercial off-the-shelf propulsion, C4ISTAR, and radar technologies. networked sensor-shoot capability, Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and aerial reconnaissance along with command and control gear to enable the crew to direct other aircraft and forces. Conventionally and nuclear capable with the possibly of being Optionally manned The Sec Def confirmed that B-21 would be considerably longer range
    2
  274. @@ardashirshah7786 No thats called technology error it can't tell the difference
    2
  275. Russia will not commit its best equipment for fear of humiliation and capture
    2
  276. @@JimCarner The LANTRIN pods they will give will do the same job as the HTS LITENING is too new and SNIPER is no go SO LANTRIN is the only way to go for them MLU can use the LANTRIN
    2
  277. Kinda pointless First high off-boresight weapons like the AIM-9X, Python-5 and IRIS-T are extremely maneuverability and easily out maneuver any aircraft The newer generation of BVR missile also incorporate better maneuverability to deal with aircraft with high maneuverability Second Modern SAM sites like the S-500 can engage aircraft from over 310 miles away whereas stealth aircraft can get inside the S-500 range More to point, radar resolution over the years greatly improved making it easier to see non stealth aircraft at longer ranges There is whole list reason why that pointless but there are some counter points The development of hypersonic weapons Hypersonic weapons combined with advanced electronic jamming can defeat the S-500 But you still need stealthy aircraft to deal with enemy fighters so the EW aircraft and aircraft carrying hypersonic weapons can focus on the site and not have to worry about being shot down Systems like the Panstir S1 and Tunguska can be problem for non stealth aircraft In the end Stealth just has all the advantages needs for modern warfare
    2
  278. For ASAT They will need to buy the USN SM-6s and Army PAC-3 modded for air launch
    2
  279.  @Chuck_Hooks  That and better radar as well EOTS
    2
  280. Bad idea Its far more effective to destroy the enemy on the ground where they cant really defend themselves versus trying to fight them in the air where they can defend themselves
    2
  281. Technology aint cheap Russia claims its tech is just as good yet look how poorly its doing in Ukraine
    2
  282.  @BreandanAnraoi  Procurement The GBU-39 only costs 40K per unit because there are over 17,000 made The GBU-53 is just getting into full production The initial batches were expensive to make as they were only ordering a handful testing. The first batch in 2015 was only 144 units The USAF Lot 9 last year is was 12,000 units The Lot 11 buy adds another 9000 The USN and USMC are expected to make their big buys soon Israel may not buy it because of the SPICE-250 but orders from others are starting to flow in
    2
  283. The Su-57 contract was awarded 1 year after the F35 yet there are barely 32 made
    2
  284.  @danahebdon6810  Exactly my point Despite all their claims, they barely have any built The links are gone but in 2007, they were claiming that by 2012, the Su-57 would over take the F-35 Iran was supposed to get Su-57 by 2022 as by then there would have been over 1500 Su-57 built Russia made several lofty claims about its program and it failed miserably
    2
  285.  @korana6308  Maneuvering is moot when the missile has a higher G load
    2
  286. The hype is the key word and Russian hype is all bark and no bite
    2
  287.  @AdminAccount-cr2tb  Considering that Ukraine borders Russia after a year , Ukraine is still very much in the fight thanks to a hand ful of US tech speaks volumes of superiority As for Russia not leaving., The UK supply of Storm Shadows to Ukraine is going to very much change that situation
    2
  288. Not likely Cost is what created this mess in the first place because Congress argued the F-22 was too costly so the NGAD costs is the only way out as Congress canxed the F-22 and there is no way to restart production so the NGAD regardless of cost is the only way forward
    2
  289. @ Thats the crazy F-37 Talon -yes F-39- Rapier yes F-47-??
    2
  290.  @Jeff55369  That would be possible if Boeing was smart but I think Northrop might get it to balance out things
    2
  291.  @HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle  No targeting the launchers themselves before they can launch
    2
  292.  @HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle  Thats combined arms are for The F-22 ALR-94 is capable to detect targets by emission from over 250 miles away The F-35 has evolved version of the ALR-94 called the ASQ-239 The F-35C uses to its ASQ-239 track the DF by their signal emission , then uses its Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) to ID the DF from long range once located, the F-35C transmits the data back to the B-1B and lets the good times roll
    2
  293. Newer missiles are designed to be more modular so they can be service and upgraded much more easily
    2
  294.  @jaybee9269  I do like the DDGX current design but the DDG-1000 has more room to grow into a far more capable ship Same as the Independence class LCS just wasted potential
    2
  295.  @hertzwave8001  They need to learn their lesson from the DDG-1000, LCS and Constellation class messes and be more efficient with their design and planning There are so much that Flight II of the DDG-1000 they could get right If they lengthen it by a few feet. They could up the missile capacity similar to Ticonderoga class or higher and completely over match China's Type-055 and Russia;s Kirov, Lider and Super Gorshkov Thats the thinking they are missing. Make ships that are par not completely over matching the adversary capabilities
    2
  296. China has capable ships but they are still very much not a global force China's most powerful ship , the Type-55 and Russia's Kirov is still no match for US Ticonderoga class one on one As for SiAW it addresses the need for weapons to be multiple purpose rather than specialized The SiAW didnt need to be hypersonic but at least Mach 3 with the seeker from the GBU-53 , 300 miles range and Joint Multi-Effects Warhead System (JMEWS) type warhead at 300lbs Ukraine has shown lighter warhead can disable targets temporarily which for the US doesnt work. DFs are massive launcher and the US needs something that powerful enough to render the target useless
    2
  297. How about no While the NGAD and FA/XX should share, engines ,sensors and avionics, that designs have to be different. The USN doesnt need anymore hornets. they need to focus on prototyping the FA/XX. The F-35 can replace all F-18s but there would be no justification for the FA/XX program. The only thing that USAF should do with the F-16 is buy block 70s converted to act as EA-16 like the USN EA-18G.
    2
  298.  @colbunkmust  This little thing called cost By using tech from the NGAD, the USN can keep FA/XX costs down commonality between the two can help both sides
    2
  299.  @colbunkmust  Not correct Engines made by PW , RR or GE can be applied to either design Raytheon, L3 , Collins and Harris again tech that can be applied to either design The base design may be NG, LM or BO but the tech can come from various sources
    2
  300.  @colbunkmust  If the USN wants to keep cost down, they need to borrow from the NGAD Secondly incorrect. The first F-35C was delivered to the USN in 2009 The first USN unit was operational in 2012 for pilot training and the first combat unit to transition to the F-35C in 2018 The F-35C procurement is only 420 planes currently
    2
  301.  @colbunkmust  The F-35A has priority over the F-35C in production as the F-35A orders are well in the thousands while the F-35C is low hundreds The F-35C for the USMC has 2 units while the USN has 6 units. The F-35C by no means is new as the USN has operated them since 2012 For reasons only god knows why , USN opted to complete transition from F-18A-D to F-18E/F instead simultaneously transitioning F-18E/F and F-35C There were 5 units that could stood up as F-35C units instead of F-18E/F Its not 1/24 there clueless one. As more Ford class carriers become available, the older Nimitz class will be retired. It makes no sense to retrofit the F-35 to Nimtiz carriers that will be retired shortly CVN-70 through 73 can operate the F-35C, the CVN-74 through 77 will get it with their next RCOH So out of 11 CVNs, 5 can operate the F-35. As stated billion times already F-35C procurement is low
    2
  302. Glad the US is finally updating its clown pleasers
    2
  303.  @RyanLS  Thats all faked videos from last year
    2
  304. Yes but not in the traditional sense Air superiority in the past was about going toe to toe in the air , the F-35 achieves air superiority by destroying the enemy on the ground as well their assets before they can become a threat. There is no need for head on engagements Example, F-35s simultaneously strike air defense, air field runway, AWACS and tankers while cruise missiles are enroute With the runway out of commission, the planes on the ground are dead when missiles arrive without AWACS and air defense radars, the enemy planes in the air have no eyes to coordinate their counter attack With interception and CAS, its the same, different tactics to achieve the same result with minimal effort The A-10 can gun run which is cool but not efficient The F-35 can use 1 missile to do the job
    2
  305. DRFM are a good reactive measure but the best proactive measure is still destroying the SAMs and enemy aircraft before they can get a chance to fire on the F-35 That SiAW , MAKO and HACM programs that need to expedited Ideally they should revisit the JSOW-ER program and focus on keeping its 300 range and various payload options but increasing its speed The EA-18G is great but its still very much an easy target, they should work on two seat F-35 variant or two FA/XX that can take over the role of the EA-18G
    2
  306.  @robertieachus5865  Actually the Gulf War coined another effective tactic. Tank Plinking Dropping 500lbs GBU-12 on tanks was terrifyingly effective The cost of a GBU-12 was roughly 50,000 to 100K at time but still worth destroying million dollar tank Even today The GBU-53 even at cost of 230,000K is still very effective at turning a 4 million dollar T-90 and T-14 into scrap in one hit The drone option best bet is the MQ Mojave the ability to carry either 16 Brimstone II which have 30 mile range or 8 GBU-53
    2
  307. Not exactly correct. In the past , the go to weapon was 500lbs GBU. 500lbs was the all purpose weapon. The GBU-39 and GBU-53 replace the 500lbs in that role An F-35 and F-22 can carry 8 GBU-39/53s and be just as effective an F-16. The F-22 and F-35s are limited by the size of their weapons bay in stealth but the US, UK and Israel are all making small and light but lethal weapons to increase the stealth aircraft payload while in stealth The USAF Small Advanced Capabilities Missile program aims to triple the amount of weapons aircraft can carry while in stealth
    2
  308.  @samsonsoturian6013  Exactly the point Israel needed to commit over 100 planes to its strike against Iran 6 of the Israeli air force C-130Js could carry up 72 cruise missiles or 72 Spice 1000bs bombs The F-15EI used by Israel can only carry 3 on long range strike mission Rapid Dragon would allow the Israeli air force to unload near strategic bomber capabilities against a given Iran I wouldnt be surprised if Israel acquired a few C-390s for that reason
    2
  309. Call me crazy but why isnt anyone acquiring 10 of RAF C-130J for Ukraine The US is already planning on supplying JASSMs to Ukraine if they could mod so that it could also AGM-84 for anti ship 6 C-130 launching 72 missiles against Russian targets on long and 4 against the Black Sea Fleet I would call that a great day
    2
  310.  @samsonsoturian6013  There are no limitation of using cargo plane in war zone kiddo The point of stand off range cruise missiles is so you can attack without ever getting in range of the enemy's defenses The JASSM-B range is 570 miles, thats well outside any missile defense range and airborne interceptors The JASSM-D/XR range is 1000 miles again no way for an enemy to stop them from being launched
    2
  311.  @Chuck_Hooks  That many missiles isnt likely If USAF really what to be nightmarish They should reinvest in the JSOW-ER A Rapid Dragon with JSOW-ER would the ultimate game changer JSOW-A1 carries 500lbs which good for point targets. the JSOW-A has submunitions payload which excellent against spread out forces and airfields The JSOW-C carries the BROACH warhead for hard-target penetration You can carry a payload of JSOW-ERs and strike a wider rage of targets up to 300 miles away
    2
  312.  @Chuck_Hooks  As the limits of the C-130J are clearier now and there are no more C-17s being made I would revisit with the USAF and USMC for possible procurement of the A-400M An USAF procurement of 100 A400M and USMC with 26 would save face for the A400M program Airbus should ask Lockheed for a Rapid dragon kit for the A400M to sweeten the deal Embarer also try the C-390 for the Rapid Dragon
    2
  313.  @samsonsoturian6013  Yeah, how about you take your own advice
    2
  314.  @samsonsoturian6013  Again take your own advice as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about
    2
  315.  @samsonsoturian6013  Ah yes, the poor man insults when they have lost
    2
  316.  @samsonsoturian6013  Again with the poor's man agruments
    2
  317. Sci fi armor has several functional issues First , if someone gets hit and needs medical attention, its pain in the ass to get off. Second, normal body armor, they simply replace the strike plate and patch the vest and call it a day , back in action. unless the vest and plates are too damaged With sci fi, armor, back to point one The armor has to be thick enough to withstand 12.7mm directly and repeatedly but not so heavy that movement is cumbersome Iron man style armor not likely. In the movie , Edge of tomorrow, that armor is very realistic and easily made with current technology ,the only problem is lack of ballistic protection from bullets and shrapnel Full body armor will be mesh of ceramic with some metal but not like the movies Personally Garsarki would be a better option
    2
  318.  @Spearhead45  Wrong The point of the AIM-174B is allowing to USN to engage targets well outside the fleet defenses
    2
  319.  @Spearhead45  Again with the nonsense They are having with even basic battleships like the Arleigh Burke- Burkes are destroyers not battleships you lack of factual information is hilarious
    2
  320. The simple fact its modern warfare and more efficient for the B-2 to carry the heavy load while F-22s knock out the enemy's fighters. The EA-18G and F-16CJ against their defenses and the F-15E launching JASSM against their bunkers and command posts The F-35s role is using SiAW or MAKO against land based jammers, mobile launchers and other high mobile targets that pose a possible threat to the B-2s Combined with other assets, you dont need a large strike package of F-35s A few armed with SiAW, MAKO, GBU-53s and JSOW with BROACH and BLU-97s for target suppression to allow the B-2 to get range and deliver the KO out blows mojothemigo
    2
  321.  @area51z63  Incorrect, The B-52 was loaded with the Harpoon and AGM-142 HAVE NAP in 80s and 90s as means to give the B-52 stand off strike capability against conventional targets The B-52 primary weapons were the AGM-86 and AGM-129 which were both nuclear tipped. They didnt get conventional warhead to much later The USAF could have kept conventional AGM-86 and 129 but they were only usable on the bombers The JASSM was designed to be usable on both bombers and strike fighters The CALCM had a beefy 3000lbs warhead with 700 mile range. Improved variants had increased range but carried a smaller 1200lbs warhead The point of the JASSM-XR is for the USAF to regain that range and heavy hitting power and as its JASSM variant, the cost is relatively cheap
    2
  322.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  Exactly By knocking out long range radars, SAMs sites , airfields ,command/control bunkers as well using ADM-141 decoys The US made a massive hole in Iraq defenses allow the F-117 ample room operate Russia can't do that in Ukraine with their lack of commitment to SEAD
    2
  323. The salami slicer
    2
  324.  @johndoh5182  The salami slicer is kinetic weapon The blades likely deploy at optimal height from the target so the maximum kinetic energy is imparted on the target
    2
  325. Bad idea point blank, SEAD/DEAD requires speed and technology The A-10 has neither
    2
  326.  @dreamhunter2973  No The Su-57 had to be fitted with Su-35 avionics and engines just to fly
    2
  327.  @reway8750  Ah yes denial Sorry can't deny facts
    2
  328.  @donkoh5738  100 percent incorrect The F-22 came at the end of the Cold War and Congress went on rampage of cancelling programs. The problem was that F-15 had performed beautifully as well being still being relatively new. Additionally the F-15 was being exported while the F-22 was not. The USAF managed to save it but they reduce many of its capabilities as funding was now scarce. By 2000, the F-15 was at the point where the F-22 could start replacing it, then Sept 11 and Iraq caused funding to shift to asymmetric counterinsurgency warfare. Then you had all the wrong people in positions. The people making the decisions about the F-22 had zero military experience and did understand the need for remaining ahead of the game. How ironic was it when Su-57 and J-20 program became active, Congress scrambled to get more F-22 but their predecessors had already fucked that up The F-22 tech was old, however with an open production line, a prospective F-22C would address any shortcomings A prospective F-22C would have adopted the F-35s, programing, EOTS, DAS, HMS and redesigned weapons bay for better multi mission capabilities Much like how the F-15 was developed into the F-15EX, the F-22 with an open production line would have done the same The F-22 was cancelled not because of tech but because of asshole penny pinching Same idiots that tried to cancel the MV-22s. Obama and Gates cancelled a lot DOD progams and alot of blood is on their hands because of it Th
    2
  329.  @jamesmaddison4546  Exactly why the current level of propulsion is not feasible. It requires Mars and Earth to be in optimal positions which is not feasible Feasible would be 7 months 3 months there 1 month stay and months return regardless of the planet positions . The ship would only have carry 14 months of supplies A 2 year mission would require 4 years worth of supplies The problem with pre supplying is that you don't have any control over it. Now after the crew has left, you can start sending additional supplies so can build up a surplus so future missions can more equipment to expand the base
    2
  330. @ Saying it can Mach 2 is not much of milestone Even saying to can supercruise at Mach 2 isnt much as the F-22 can supercruise at 1.8 mach it will be interesting to see what unique weapon they make for it
    2
  331.  @SAMMIEJONESJUNIOR  I believe that Boeing may pull both if they can pitch it similar to the F-35A and F35C A common design for both USAF and USN that would possibly save money and time Looking at the design with the possible canards seems to imply
    2
  332.  @dextermorgan1  Its simple there are 4 programs in various stages and none have reached full operational and production All are being hampered by testing failures if at least one program was fully operational and in production ,there would no urgency with the others but the urgency is to get at least one The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) was supposed to be it , then it ran into problems. Same with the ARRW , was fine than ran into problems if the next ARRW test knocks it out the park, the USAF will likely procure it in a limited number or full production which depends on the success of the HACM There are shorter ways but then they would be in same position as China and Russia As for what the black budget drones, AI and stealth and others but a shift in focus has change that
    2
  333.  @Chuck_Hooks  That is the magic question, how data was saved from that time There is the possibility that was stored on the storage mediums which was early 90s 3.5 inch floppy and Zip drive but its sound like no one bothered to move the data from those mediums to newer format So you are right, its just sitting somewhere in archive collecting dust so everyone starting from square one
    2
  334. The simple fact is that A-10 is not the plane for this kinda of job They need the F-16
    2
  335. Being on time, under budget and great operation performance
    2
  336. Well the GE T901 wasnt wasted thankfully The smart thing to which the Army isnt good at would take the Bell 360 and repurpose the design for a replacement for the AH-64 and the S-97 as replacement for the MH-6
    2
  337.  @Defective1313  I don't think it was fluff Remember, the B-2 has been operating for over 30 years, so thats countless lessons learned as well invaluable operational experience The Raider is said to be using advanced model of the F-135 engine. The B-2 four General Electric F118 produced a combined 70,000lbs of thrust 1 F-135 alone produces 43,000lbs. If she packing 4 F-135 engines , its over 170,000lbs of thrust, thats more power than B-1 or Tu-160s That implies that its substantially faster, maybe as high as 700 mph Secondly if its the F-135, that also means it likely has the same growth options as the F-135 does for the F-35 Also consider the advances with weapons as well
    2
  338.  @EmpressCeriath  Right So instead of sending Su-24,30, 34 and 35s out of hunt for Ukrainian Self-propelled artillery which is currently beating the brakes off Russian forces, they hope that propaganda will stop Ukraine forces ? Instead of using their so called high precision missiles to knock out airports and prevent the West from supplying Ukraine ,again propaganda that western weapons are not having any effect There is a video on YT called Putin's troops brandish deadly U.S weapons seized from Ukraine's Donetsk where a Russian solider is showing off anti-tanks weapons they captured from Ukraine forces??? Ukraine forces have captured tanks, air defense equipment, EW equipment as well as key parts from Russian aircraft and sent them all to the US Yet Russia is showing off a few anti-tanks weapos
    2
  339. The AGM-88G can already do that minus the visual mode What you are thinking about is rather expensive mod and iffy if they want to spend that $$ A hypothetical AGM-88H would need to be designed like the SM-2/RIM-5 and have EO/IR sensor built on the side Second, it would need Automatic Target Recognition Unit (ATRU) added In addition to current sensors which is a lot The missile already weights 800lbs
    2
  340. Not likely The great benefit of Ukraine is that its shown its far more effective to physical destroy the jammer than counter it
    2
  341. Exercises and tests are far from reality is what people don't understand Secondly, the F-16 was designed under impression that aircraft would have to fight their way in and out of the battle space We live in modern warfare and gaining air superiority can be achieved without dogfights You knock out the enemy's defenses and attack the enemy's airfield and disable runways and taxiway, they can't scramble aircraft All you have to do is destroy the aircraft while they are on the ground There are several methods of destroying aircraft on the ground that achieves air superiority Modern air forces rely on tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR aircraft A special forces attack against those assets would cripple an air force Without your AWACS , its hard to coordinate, , with tankers its hard to stay air borne and without ISR , you cant' get intel You no longer need to rely on fighters for air superiority, they can carry out other vital missions The development of hypersonic weapons only furthers that
    2
  342. In Ukraine case, baby steps is what they need to do Their first strike should be against the Black Sea Fleet and bases and take them out of the equation completely The second strike should be against Russian forward operating bases , specifically bases where aircraft ,supply lines and Kerch bridge After that pull back. Knocking out those 3 objectives buys Ukraine weeks if not months of tactical advantage The biggest mistake Ukraine can make is trying to head on with Russian forces Those 3 objects can be attacked with Harpoons and Storm Shadows basically launch and leave not need to get up close and personal yet
    2
  343.  @hypocritease  They need to ask the US for its expeditionary airfield equipment These types of hangar can be put up and down with in hour
    2
  344. While this is good The USN need to get the HALO program going
    2
  345.  @jamesmaddison4546  Yet the F-15 has a vastly superior records despite F-16 claims of turn rate, wing loading and 9G turn ? Thats just a couple of examples that literally proves nothing As it says , the proof is in puddle and the F-15 is 100 kills to zero losses in ACM while the F-16 is neither
    2
  346.  @jamesmaddison4546  Not bias Simple fact The F-16 has encountered migs like F-15 ,however the result was the dominating performance like F-15 The F-16 is being completely replace while F-15 is being upgraded , strange despite the quote" performance statistics " The F-15EX is being test while the USAF has not brought any F-16s since ? and only upgrading the current models till the F-35, so if the F-16 is so superior, why the did the USAF rejected replacing F-15C with F-16E/F and press forward with F-15 Here are the stats that matter F-15EX range 800 miles without CFT or tanks F-16E/F range 1000 miles with CFT and tanks The F-15EX can carry Legion pod, Dragon eye pod and Sniper XR pod all simultaneously with no loss in payload and only using up the centerline station whereas the F-16 ? The F-15EX with AMBER is you stated is truck of weapons while as F-16?? The advantages of the F-15 as series is vastly superior to F-16 in every way possible not bias fact
    2
  347. of course Israel has no complaints The F-35 allows them control of the region
    2
  348. LMAO
    2
  349. The JAS-39 is lightweight powerhouse for countries on budget
    2
  350.  @JarrodFrates  Keel breaking will cripple the ship structurally but the ship will remain afloat and functioning The Quicksink test was against a light freighter We havent seen how it performs against warships
    2
  351.  @goobfilmcast4239  The X-47B is differently something the USN needs to be bring back
    2
  352.  @Leon1Aust  Thats why its called sensor shooter
    2
  353.  @hamidshahriari6474  There are no stockpiled A and Bs models AIM-120A was the initial preproduction with limited run in 91 followed by AIM-120B in 93 and lastly AIM-120C in 1996 The AIM-120C has been the most produced model AIM-120C-7 was fielded in 2003 and due demand was produced in great numbers This is the one time where scrapping the AIM-120A and B makes sense over sending them Ukraine as they would be basically useless
    2
  354.  @MacDaddy8200  They are overrated but the threat remains
    2
  355.  @TooFingers  it pointless to write on YT
    2
  356. The F-117 can operate without being seen
    2
  357.  @dougcoombes8497  No they are not They have too few aircraft to use Storm Shadows and the USV success against target has been limited Ukraine is estimated to have just 8 Su-24s and how many are wired to carry Storm Shadows ? Ukraine is getting 61 F-16 10 F-16s with 2 Harpoons each against the Black Sea Fleet unlike the USV will do major damage Instead a few Su-34s Ukraine can send up 10 plane strike packages and lob 20 missiles per target 20 missiles striking a Russian base vs maybe 1 or 2 missiles strike the same target Example Russian airfield you can put 3 missiles into taxi ways and 7 for cratering the runaways Thats gives 1 missile for the fuel dump , another for munition storage 10 for everything else So instead and here you are dropping hay maker blows
    2
  358.  @nietkees6906  Yet Ukraine has been destroying S-400 components in recent months
    2
  359.  @dougcoombes8497  Again wrong Hell Ukraine proved my point as they just smoked an S-400 site
    2
  360.  @dougcoombes8497  Thousands doesnt translate to thousands deployed Russia still has its own territory to protect
    2
  361. This only highlights that USAF needs to reconsider its decision with the AMBER racks If anything , they need an advanced variant of the AMBER racks that can also use AIM-9s They also need to low cost missile that can be carried in large number but still cost effective against drones I would say Raytheon' Peregrine and Lockheed CUDA could be the answer they are looking for
    2
  362.  @akkudakkupl  That wouldnt be of any use to them Taiwan only has 8 CH-47s so they are not likely to have much on them I believe the real reason is China bribed him and then give him up The US has denied Taiwan access to more advanced tech due the fear of it falling into Chinese hands and this incident only reinforces that
    2
  363.  @ramroddrone5449  If the USN wanted to attack PLAN ships with Growlers , it would a highly coordinated attack with multiple aircraft as well as decoys
    2
  364.  @ignacio3890  who to hell is the REZONANS
    2
  365. The only problem with LRSO is that air defenses are highly advanced and getting longer range and greater accuracy The USAF should reconsider the AGM-183 program or the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) for nuclear use
    2
  366. No
    2
  367. Yes it is but Ukraine doesnt have assets EA-18Gs, F-16CJ, EC-130 and Rivet Joint that can locate and destroy jammers
    2
  368.  @AvanaVana  As far as projecting military power again ,not even close
    2
  369.  @cassiespencer6134  China's H-20 is very much not a threat
    2
  370. Like everything, the F-22 has had its time
    2
  371. That goes without saying
    2
  372.  @taylorc2542  yeah no
    2
  373.  @ji3194  Yes and no Yes the A-12 was waste The LCS only issue was that the Independence class design should have chosen for the FFG role while the Freedom class retained for the LCS role The DDG-1000 lies solely on Congress The USN told them repeatedly that Naval gunfire support no longer relevant to modern warfare but Congress knew better The only mistakes the USN made is not making the AGS common with NATO standard 155mm rounds and not using common architecture software that is used on Burkes and TIcos
    2
  374. The SPEAR3 advantage is that its powered which allows it to carry out time sensitive strikes which is capable that GBU-53 should get with later variant
    2
  375. The YF-23 was stealthier but the YF-22 design more potential
    2
  376. Key its their life line
    1
  377. A prospective 7th gen would be like the movie stealth and Dark Star from Top gun Maverick Ability to travel worldwide in a moments notice Able to travel from the US to EU in under a hour . In pacific, it would able to reach Guam with in 1 hour and half Tankers would be needed for longer range missions Going into space no but able to operate at 150,000 yes. The USN is experimenting with the SM-6 for aircraft to carry and Lockheed has a proposed AIM variant of the MIM-104 patriot. A prospective AIM-6 and AIM-104 would allow a 7th gen to carry out ballistic missile defense against missiles like SBLM, ICBM and hypersonic weapons and possibly even as Anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) Additionally dropping bunker buster from that height would have massive kinetic energy on impact. Dogfighting would rare but not impossible
    1
  378. The simple answer is no The F-35s is no true dogfighter against a Su-57 or J-20 You need something as capable as the F-22 but improved to deal with the J-20 and Su-57 The NGAD should incorporate F-35 tech yes, but it also needs it own
    1
  379. Skynet approves
    1
  380. What it has does not matter What its doing right now is not having any effect on the situation in Ukraine Russia's problem is that they can't destroy HIMARS and other Self-propelled artillery units in Ukraine Their highly mobility allows them to shoot and scoot before Russian forces can counter attack Per Russia, they have high precision missiles yet have failed to take any HIMARS or Self-propelled artillery unit out only make propaganda claims The US unlike Russia and China has various hypersonic programs for various needs The Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) and Hypersonic Air-launched OASuW.(HALO) is designed to fighters the tactical flexibility to engage high-value or time-sensitive targets without having to rely on bombers Both Russia's and China 1 size missile approach is not working
    1
  381. The simple answer is yes The USAF and USMC have proven the worth tiltrotor aircraft. The USN finally got onboard All that was left was the Army The SB-1 logged considered less hours than V-280
    1
  382. They achieved that by using commercial off-the-shelf technology COTS as well as existing technology from other defense programs Its said that the B-21 uses an advanced derivative the F-35 F-135 engine. The B-1B uses AN/APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) same as the F-16 Right , the USAF has fitted B-1, and B-52 derivative radars from fighters So its likely that B-21 also uses derivative as of an existing radar. likely the F-35s APG-81 The B-1, B-2 and B-52 had to undergo several upgrades through out their lives for their conventional capabilities so its likely the B-21 already has the universal data bus for all USAF weapons By using COTS and existing technology from other defense programs Thats money they didn't have to spend developing new tech for the B-21 Ironically that's how they kept cost down with the YF-23, they used COTS and existing parts from other aircraft lastly , the B-2 was two Billion per copy is because procurement was cut from 165 planes to just 21 That won't happen with B-21
    1
  383. Ideally they should be taking the best of the F-22 , F-35 and F-15EX and rolling it one Like the F-35, it should have it own unique weapon
    1
  384.  @Isaiah-53-777  The only way would be no sort of external ports for an enemy to probe Even the navigation would have to use older style INS, TERCOM and DSMAC As long as it has any sort of external port there is possible of hacking
    1
  385.  @forsaturn4629  Again The footage may questionable but action itself is not It very possible that Ukraine airforce could have inflicted that kinda of damage
    1
  386. All the most reason for the US military to switch from the M61 to GAU-22
    1
  387. No, the AIM-120D range 86 miles The newer AIM-120D-3 range closer to 120 miles The problem with the AIM-120 and AIM-54 wasnt its range but its warhead The AIM-120 carries 44lbs which enough for all aircraft and some missiles The AIM-54 carried 133lbs which was more than enough for any target The AIM-7 carried 88lbs warhead but its range was only 40 miles Hence why the AIM-174 was developed It has everything the USN needs Range over 150 miles , advanced seeker as well as reception with the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) but most important 140lbs warhead usable against any target it does weight 1800lbs slightly less than a cruise missile but I fully expect the USN to reduce its weight while improving its range and capabilities so it can used used the F-35C as well as the FA/XX The USAF may eye for the F-15EX II as a deterrent for Russian Tu-160, Tu-22 and Tu-95 as well Chinese Xian-6s
    1
  388. SR-72 variant for time sensitive strikes
    1
  389. The 6th gen is evolution of the lessons learned from the previous generation. It should incorporate the latest engine technology for superior performance namely fuel efficiency , speed and less maintenance. Like the F-35 has no HUD, the 6th should take cockpit ergonomics to the next level. Electronic warfare should be almost as good as dedicated EW asset and lastly it should bring it own unique weapons. The F-35s is the GBU-53 and JSM. The 6th should be the first generation of airborne laser weapons as well as a Advanced Capabilities Missile ACM should be similar to the MIM-146 ADATS. The ADATS was missile able to engage armor on the ground but also had the same to engage aircraft The ACM should follow suit. A missile with the speed to engage aircraft but Joint Multi-Effects Warhead able to engage targets on the ground. The F-15EX can carry up 22 AIM-120s but only engage aerial targets but the ACM would be able to engage anything the pilot needs to target
    1
  390. That would be the US Russia's Kinzhal is basically a rebuilt Iskander and the Zircon rebuilt KH-32s. China's DFs are repurposed MRBM ,Same as Iran What the US is building is vastly superior to all The HACM is designed like the JASSM, Able to be used on both tactical and strategic assets with ease
    1
  391. South Carolina is a lot forest area So finding it is no easy task
    1
  392. Enough already test flight time
    1
  393. Whatever algorithm YT is currently using is censoring anything beyond a few words now and people will get fed up with it
    1
  394.  @toasteroven6761  Its called economical The majority of that equipment has been there for 20 years so there was no point in bringing back. More to the point, Taliban without any assistance has been forced to scrape most of it So the question what did they actual get and the answer is nothing The only failure was the Afghanistan military and president not heeding the US warnings
    1
  395.  @toasteroven6761  Again wrong Why bring back equipment that is of no further use Now if Afghanistan wasnt land locked and there was easy access to the sea, then US would chartered Roll-on/roll-off cargo ships and removed everything however The only access was via air and thats thousands of flights trying to remove equipment, its not worth the expense and again without US support, that equipment became most scrap. Case in point, the Iraqi military has access to substantial amounts of US equipment. F-16, M1A1s and so forth as well the ability purchase substantial equipment from other countries because there was no fear of it failing into the the wrong hands. Afghanistan on the other hand was severely limited in that area what is the most advanced that Taliban got from the US thats still operating , nada The US warned the Afghanistan military and president to change their tactics and not fight Taliban on such wide front anymore as the US would be no longer providing support for their operations Instead, they attacked and were easily defeated. So instead of consolidating their forces to protect their assets , they spread out and got smoked leaving no barrier between them and US forces who already started to draw down forces
    1
  396.  @bloodgout  Its not pure misinformation. he doesnt get what economically feasible vs economically infeasible means There is no why that US would pay price to bring back equipment thats being sitting over there for 20 years
    1
  397.  @toasteroven6761  Looks and priorities don't matter why spend millions on demilitarization cost when its easier to simply leave it behind You wanna spend million simply over look, did you literally just write that Deterrence doesnt need looks, it works on pure facts. The fact is that the US wasnt forced out ,they withdrew The justification for was over once Bin Laden was dead Secondly, till the US forces drew down,the Taliban never openly attacked conventionally as they knew the US would make quick work of any conventional attack Any attack was always asymmetric as the Taliban knew fully they stood no chance No so far all its been nonsense from you Russia's invasion has nothing to with Afghanistan pull out, Even it do, Russia has paid massive price for it The Red Sea Crisis only exists as the UN wants a peaceful resolution not an all out conflict All the UN has do so the word or the Houthi make a mistake and all bets are off
    1
  398.  @toasteroven6761  Right says the one that believes that the US should have spent billions recovering basically worthless gear just to perpetuate a an absurd facade Again Deterrence is facts not fiction Before advanced satellites and other ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) It was easy to perpetuate the appearance of strength because the enemy had no way to knowing Russia perpetuated itself as super power and 3 years later in Ukraine , that was proved to a myth With Afghanistan and Iraq The US proved its capabilities as they gained control both very quickly by doing what Russia cant seem to do
    1
  399. Sure says the guy claiming that the US should have wasted billions just for appearances Deterrence is based on facts not fiction
    1
  400.  @toasteroven6761  Again with the pure nonsense
    1
  401.  @toasteroven6761  The only person coping would there clueless one as you cant grasp simple economics and reality
    1
  402.  @toasteroven6761  Making fun of you is too easy there are entire graveyards of equipment in the pacific and even the EU from previous wars Perfectly fine equipment that was left as it made no sense to bring back Leaving equipment in theater is a practice that is centuries old Simple economics not worth the effort Deterrence is facts not fiction Before spy sats and ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) aircraft It was all guess work Today, its an exact science Russia's myth of super power has been shattered by 3 years of conflict while the US position has never been stronger and that reality is due the fact of US weapons proving their superiority over Russian weapons yet again
    1
  403. Making fun of you is too easy there are entire graveyards of equipment in the pacific and even the EU from previous wars Perfectly fine equipment that was left as it made no sense to bring back Leaving equipment in theater is a practice that is centuries old Simple economics not worth the effort Deterrence is facts not fiction Before spy sats and ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) aircraft It was all guess work Today, its an exact science Russia's myth of super power has been shattered by 3 years of conflict while the US position has never been stronger and that reality is due the fact of US weapons proving their superiority over Russian weapons yet again
    1
  404. ​ @toasteroven6761  There are entire graveyards of equipment in the pacific and even the EU from previous wars Perfectly fine equipment that was left as it made no sense to bring back Leaving equipment in theater is a practice that is centuries old Simple economics not worth the effort Deterrence is facts not fiction Before spy sats and ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) aircraft It was all guess work Today, its an exact science Russia's myth of super power has been shattered by 3 years of conflict while the US position has never been stronger and that reality is due the fact of US weapons proving their superiority over Russian weapons yet again
    1
  405. Before spy sats and ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) aircraft It was all guess work for deterrence Today, its an exact science Russia's myth of super power has been shattered by 3 years of conflict while the US position has never been stronger and that reality is due the fact of US weapons proving their superiority over Russian weapons yet again
    1
  406. Making fun of you is too easy there are entire graveyards of equipment in the pacific and even the EU from previous wars Perfectly fine equipment that was left as it made no sense to bring back Leaving equipment in theater is a practice that is centuries old Simple economics not worth the effort Deterrence is facts not fiction Before spy sats and ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) aircraft It was all guess work Today, its an exact science Russia's myth of super power has been shattered by 3 years of conflict while the US position has never been stronger and that reality is due the fact of US weapons proving their superiority over Russian weapons yet again
    1
  407.  @toasteroven6761  Russia's myth of super power has been shattered by 3 years of conflict while the US position has never been stronger and that reality is due the fact of US weapons proving their superiority over Russian weapons yet again
    1
  408.  @toasteroven6761  As yes the classic denial in fact of actual facts you got all the answers explain why Russia cant deal the after 3 years despite the fact Ukraine borders them
    1
  409.  @toasteroven6761  What you call answers is pure nonsense point blank
    1
  410.  @toasteroven6761  Hell even Turkey is willing to give up its S-400 now just get US made F-35 funny how that works
    1
  411.  @toasteroven6761  Nonsense no where in history has any military done the nonsense you claim because its exactly that nonsense
    1
  412.  @SlavicCelery  SAL and MWW both require painting the target IR does not IR seekers are imultispectral allow them to see targets in various wave lengths which is much harder to jam
    1
  413.  @zahnatom  Wrong the missile require guidance before their seeker takes over
    1
  414. True but that was the greatest benefit to the USAF in the end Due lessons from Serbia, the AGM-88 was heavily upgraded to point where its mini cruise missile and its replaced the SiAW is designed to operate against all targets types The EA-18G addresses the shortcoming over Serbia. The F-16CJ has weapons and speed but not accurate enough sensors. The EA-6B has sensors and weapons but not the speed Additionally both had communication issues Stealth aircraft need radar, ECM, MAWS, RWR and other defensive weapons Lastly, improved stand off weapons allow stealth aircraft to get close but still remain at range where SAMS can detect but cant lock They know something is there but they cant lock it
    1
  415. Nothing wrong with AIM-9X and AIM-120
    1
  416. Tanks as a whole will be obsolete by then
    1
  417.  @Silver_Prussian  Production is based on several factors First is how many tanks you are buying Most of the tanks that US has are the M1A2 SEPs with the older M1A1s in storage Ideally , it would very economical to scrap the older M1A1s that cant be upgraded to M1A2SEP and upgrade the rest of M1A2 SEP-3 while buying newer AbramsX for future conflicts but that would make too much sense The dumbest thing that the Army did was canx the M1128 Mobile Gun System and by the M10 booker If the Army wanted a light tank or fire support , they should made a second variant of the MGS based on the Japanese Type 16 maneuver combat vehicle Type 16 maneuver combat vehicle weights 26 tons versus 38 plus on the M-10 The Type 16 carries 40 rounds vs 18 on the MGS and 21 on M10 but most importantly, if you wanted up gun it to 120mm You would have more rounds than the MGS or Booker but again that would make too much sense
    1
  418.  @area51z63  If they perform correctly, the first strike will weaken an enemy severely however a war with China or Russia wouldnt be over in the first strike,
    1
  419.  @kameronjones7139  The LRASM cant be carried internally by the F-35
    1
  420.  @shokwavxb  That would have helped but only if later ships addressed the flaws of the first 3
    1
  421. Simple The Rebels and the West were situational allies Despite the West support, they dont trust them so hence why the US, Israel and Turkey are making any and all advanced weaponry is destroyed and cant be used for ill means
    1
  422.  @kdrapertrucker  Thats most likely the case
    1
  423. MAWS and RWRs would still detect the missile once its go close to target. Stealth is effective a longer range but under 10 miles, MAWS and RWRs would detect it
    1
  424. Who created it doesnt matter, The US was the only one that put it practical use and proved its strengths and weakness via actual combat. After that, everyone else jumped on the bandwagon
    1
  425. Copycating and learning the hard way when you do that
    1
  426. The compound was located smack in civilian area Even 500lbs bomb would risk collateral damage
    1
  427. Yes by all means, lets listen to con artist trying to put money into his pocket. its simple math Trump is dismantling the FBI and DOJ so Musk can claim that the F-35 is waste of money and claim that he could build drones cheaper With DOJ out of the way ,there is no one to raise the red flag about conflicts of interest , paving the way for him to get a large contract from the DOD In essential ,putting money in his pocket its simple math
    1
  428. The F-22 wasn't built with roadmap The F-15, F-16 and F-18 all have several upgrades. The F-15 from A to EX, The F-16 from Block 10 to Block 70 and F-18 to Block III The F-35 has roadmap of upgrades and equipment changes like the F-15, F-16 and F-18s that will keep it relevant through 2070 The F-22 was given some increment upgrades but nothing that would keep it relevant
    1
  429.  @velocitymg  The F-4 , F-5 and MIG-21s have been flying since late 1950s So why would it be impossible for the F-35 do the same The C-130 and B-52 have also been in operation since the 50s
    1
  430. If they want make this a reality The Quin jet is poor choice There are two other designs at more realistic than the Quin jet The first is the Valkyrie shuttle from Avatar The Valkyrie achieves VTOL with 4 engines The two large Fusion engines would be deleted but final design would be much larger engines in the wings The old TV show Space above and beyond had the ISSCV That design had 6 engines 2 on wings and 4 in back the engines on wings could rotate like the MV-22 nacelles For VTOL there was 2 engines permanently fixed downwards and 2 fixed like a normal jet When VTOL was need, the wing engines would rotate and the downwards would kick in to soften the landing When taking off, the rear engines would power thrust till the wing engines rotated back Like the F-35B, ISSCV could incorporate two lift fans for downwards engines
    1
  431. Yeah, its called Area 51 for a reason
    1
  432. Lucky for them
    1
  433.  @voidtempering8700  Incorrect The B-21 is designed to be smaller but far more efficient than the B-2 its not a possibility , its fact Last The backbone of US air power is tankers, AWACS and C4ISTAR aircraft Tankers provide the fuel, AWACS provides coverage and C4ISTAR aircraft perform battle management giving the US complete control of the battle field Those 3 assets allow fighters and bombers to strike effectively and efficiently In order to survive engagement against the US , China needs to neutralize those assets completely or get their lights punched out
    1
  434. The backbone of US air power is tankers, AWACS and C4ISTAR aircraft, China stand no chance if it cant neutralize those assets
    1
  435. @ So in other words , you are clueless Here's quick history for you The B-2 powered by 4 F118 engines built in the 80s based of F110. In others very thirsty and inefficient as they based off fighter engines The B-21 uses Pratt & Whitney PW1000G newer engines based off commercial engines which 100 tines more fuel efficient than the older B-2 F118 Allowing the B-21 to go substantially further on less fuel So yes clueless one, by using better engines , you need less fuel
    1
  436. You do realize that the MQ-9s are over 24 years old so the losses to the USAF is not even a speed bump oh right, the Houthis magic claims of striking US warship Saying to sank the same carrier a dozen times
    1
  437.  @子才李-f8s  Yeah, the J-20 will be meeting uncle AMRAAM, JATM and ERAM
    1
  438.  @bobsmith3983  The B-21 design accounts for LF systems and no its smaller size makes it harder to detect than the B-2 as well use of newer materials designed to deal with LF
    1
  439. That depends on the missile The USN has been testing the SM-6 on F-18s Interesting a little know factor about the SM-2 is that it has both SARH and IR guidance IR guidance is kryonite fore stealth The USN testing of SMs carried by F-18 is obviously a means for them extend the carriers defense range Being able to launch SM-6 from F-18 would allow the counter hypersonics weapons at greater distances but it would still have to be head on engagement not tail chase
    1
  440. It actually has no peer currently
    1
  441.  @amazin7006  That would be incorrect The F-22 is the APG-77v1 while the F-15EX uses the AN/APG-82(V)1 The F-22s radar is purpose built while the F-15EX is combination of the AN/APG-63/79/82 systems For the F-15EX to have a true edge, it will need prospective AN/APG-90 completely new built similar to the F-35 APG-85 which is new built radar for the F-35 While the F-15EX can simultaneously carry SNIPER XR, LEGION and DRAGON pods with minimal impact to payload The USAF still should have adapted F-35 tech tech EX The F-15EX should the F-35 EOTS and sensors in nose for the pilot and the pods for the WSO as well rearward DAS Replace the M61 with the GAU-22s The F-22s ALR-94 is 30 sensors blended into the airframe, The F-35 is ASQ-239 is highly variant with 10 sensors The ALR-94 and ASQ-239 allow F-22s and F-35 the ability to track and target in 360 degrees The difference is the F-35 can visually acquire targets with its DAS its an investment but thats the great thing about the F-15 air frame its still has room to grow
    1
  442. The simple answer is yes
    1
  443. That would be incorrect Russian war in Ukraine has highlighted the Russian military short comings After Vietnam, the US military dropped mountain of money on developing targeting pod , stand off precise guided munitions, Electronic warfare and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD. Later they again dropped mountain of money on UAV moving them from RQ to MQ lets recap the situation Virtually all US strike aircraft and bombers have either SNIPER XR , Litening LANTRIN or ATFLIR targeting pod Only the Su-57 and MIG-35 have targeting pods and even then the MIG-35 pod is not true system Targeting pod can id targets on ground from over 20 miles away What Russian aircraft do is their OLS system however their OLS is nose mounted so they have view limited visability as the OLS is meant of air to air not air to ground The lack of sensors is why Russian aircraft have to get low and why they are getting smoked Virtually all US strike aircraft and bombers can use the JDAM. With the exception of the B-2 , virtually all US strike aircraft and bombers PAVEWAY LGB Russia uses the KAB-series however no Russian bomber can the KAB series and only handful of aircraft can use the KAB-series Weapons like the JSOW, JASSM, LRASM, GBU-39/53 again common to virtually strike aircraft and bomber Again with Russian very little commonality That lack of commonality has greatly limited its effectiveness of it weapons and aircraft During the war in Iraq and Afghanistan , the US found that its EA-6B and EA-18G EW suites were able to track EM and RF sources from cell phones and hand held radios 3 networked together can generate targeting tracks for hostile radio-frequency sources in real time over a designated area Russian relies heavily on ground based EW suites which can only jam communication Image if they could track signals in realtime like the US can The MQ-9 is another asset they wish they had Designed for Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) the MQ-9 can orbit for hours as well as strike various targets up 20 miles away Long story short What Ukraine has shown is that Russia's claim that their weapons and capabilites which they claim are just as good as the US but at 1/4 for cost is literally not as good as the US and basically worthless
    1
  444.  @piotrd.4850  That need generated a lot of side bonuses for the US for conventional and asymmetric warfare
    1
  445.  @m1910rcb  The ARRW's mass is 6600lbs 1000lbs or more is likely the warhead as 1000lbs would make it useable against virtually anything conventionally The USAF targets for the ARRW is Chinese's DF- launchers and Russian defense 1000lbs warhead would shred both DF-21 and DF-26 with ease A precisely targeted ARRW would shredd an S-400 site ,much like how Russia attempted to do with Kinzhal against a patriot site
    1
  446.  @m1910rcb  That would be wrong The official USAF statement ARRW’s separation from the aircraft, it reached hypersonic speeds greater than five times the speed of sound, completed its flight path and detonated in the terminal area. Emphasis on detonated so yes it does have warhead The JASSM series and ARRW are both made by Lockheed so reusing the JASSM's WDU-42/B penetrator for ARRW is smart as well cost effective 1000lbs warhead makes it usable against a wide range of targets but most importantly the combined warhead with the missile's kinetic energy gives a high degree hard-target penetration against hardened targets Case in point, China's DF launchers are protected by hardened shelters and bunkers. Kinetic energy only gets the missile through and 1000lbs warhead detonating is more that enough to destroy everything in the shelter or bunker A very small effect-enhancing fragmentation charge wont do anything to most targets Surface to missile sites are spread out and the fragmentation from 1000lbs warhead can cover a wide area In nutshell, till the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) actually bears fruit, the ARRW is going to be the all purpose tool Lastly the AGM-158B-2 (JASSM-XR) weighs 5000lbs with 1200 mile range carrying 2000lbs warhead The ARRW mass is 6600lbs with 1000 mile range So fitting 1000lbs to ARRW is not that hard and less than that is waste
    1
  447. Its very likely they sent the F-117 to Syria to test the S-400 capabilities
    1
  448. If only
    1
  449. The point of the AIM-174 to counter enemy missiles at longer ranges more effectively than previous missiles
    1
  450.  @Mr.mysterious76  The US has stealth options Russia does not
    1
  451.  @terryburton971  What form of nonsense is this US nuclear weapons are governed solely by United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) USSTRATCOM receives its orders from National Command Authority (NCA) The US president is the NCA and has sole authority for use of nuclear weapons
    1
  452.  @ArizonaAstraLLC  Most combat experienced Air Force in BVR air combat is the USAF not RuAF As proven by Russia's inability to stop Su-24 with Storm Shadow from striking Simply put, the US wouldnt have Russia's problem in Ukraine The USAF has 31 E-3 and thats backed by nearly 100 USN E-2s Russia's fleet AWACS was estimated to be 17 with only 6 operational and thats now 4 with 2 shot down Russia's only other AWACS are 4 Ka-31/35 If Russia had AWACS coverage like the US, Ukraine would have been over long ago Russia's reliance on S-300 and S-400 long range radars to maintain coverage has been their downfall It took careful planning for Ukraine to strike the A-50 in the air but they strike S-300 and S-400 with ease because they know where they are 24/7 and every ease to get assets in range to strike Airborne AWACS is moving target hundreds of miles per hour and if you are not careful, they will run before you can get in range
    1
  453. The most combat experienced Air Force in BVR air combat is the USAF not the RUAF The USAF 31 AWACS aircraft backed by nearly 100 USN E-2s Russia has just 17 A-50 and 6 were operational before 2 where shot down and just 4 Ka-31s if Russia had the same amount of AWACS as the US, Ukraine would have been over long ago
    1
  454. ​ @ArizonaAstraLLC  Ukrainian pilots do not consider Russian BVR capabilties to be dangerous, thats pure propaganda Ukrainian pilots problem is they are flying Russian aircraft so Russia knows the capabilities of their missile approach warning system (MAWS) , Radar warning receiver (RWR) as well what , electronic countermeasures (ECM) their Su-24, Su-27 and MiG-29, as hell, they built them With that all info on easy, their kills are not real combat They know how to approach ,where their blinds spots are at and limits of the aircraft thats a shooting gallery not combat It would be the same if Iran tried to fight the US with the F-14s or F-4, Iran may claim indigenous tech but that doesnt change the aircraft handing or blind spots Cesar Rodriguez fought his battles with relative little info compared to what Russia is doing
    1
  455. Russian BVR kills are wildly exaggerated Cesar Rodriguez got his kills using skill and tactics Russian kills are neither Ukrainian pilots never said that Russia is dangerous in BVR They are pointing the fact the MiGs and SUs they fly are all Russian made Russia knows the exactly freq to their radar and comms, they knew the capabilities of their MAWS, RWR and ECM as well its blind spot and weakness Thats like Iran trying to use its F-4, F-5 and F-14s against the US Hence why they asking for western aircraft The F-16s they are getting have all modern MAWS, RWR and ECM . The only nation friendly to Russian with F-16s is the Venezuelan Air Force and have ancient block 15s and those are barely flyable
    1
  456. The JAS-39 is lightweight powerhouse true but that low operating cost is because it doesnt have much to work with For countries on a budget, its the perfect plane
    1
  457. Lets the games begin
    1
  458. They can't match simply because its far more flexible than what they have
    1
  459. More Charlatans than visionaries The F-16 was the only thing they got right
    1
  460. Prototype
    1
  461. The Fighter Mafia was ultimately laughed out of the defense industry because their so call conclusions were very much complete nonsense They did use their PR to back door the F-16 into service which was the only good thing they did right
    1
  462.  @johnnyenglish583  Uh, ts 2025 buddy and converting merchants ships to carriers was due to the infancy of aircraft carriers and aviation at that time in the 1920s Secondly, this is merchant ship not purpose built warship its armor is likely wafer thin hence why 2000lbs Quicksink or MK-48 ADCAP would easily send it to the bottom If Iran was smart which they are clearly not, they would stop trying to complete with the big kids and stay in their lane The ways that Israel or the US could end this ship are endless
    1
  463. The infamous test was not true showing of the F-35 capabilities
    1
  464. Probably upgraded even more by now
    1
  465. The best option for Ukraine would be the Harpoon Block II+ ER in 6 packs out of IL-76 Harpoon Block II+ ER range is 192 miles and there Il-76s in western hand that Ukraine can use The system would be roll on roll off kit that would be installed in cargo without having to be integrated Using intel, two would take off and flying long and separate routes and close to 140 miles to launch and leave 12 missiles from one plane use to target Russia shipping and 12 more for a second targeting land targets With proper coordination, ground force can knock defenses and open the door for the missiles to strike without having to contend with the target defenses The same tactic can be used with land base launcher but it still requires proper coordination,
    1
  466.  @2406west  The F-35s penetrates, the B-21 brings the heavy stuff , the F-22 clears any aircraft that are airborne and the F-15EX protects EA-18Gs, EA-37 and E-7s
    1
  467.  @daeladub  The B-21 along side the F-22 and F-35 primary mission is knocking out the enemy's ability to fight and communicate That allows the forces on the ground to move far more freely and not have to worry about enemy attack from the air
    1
  468.  @nate1sam  They are call missiles for a reason because they can miss and if they do miss The B-21 will find itself in world of trouble
    1
  469.  @nate1sam  Technology is not perfect and putting the B-21 in that situation is only asking for trouble The F-15EX can turn with a Su or MIG its simple smarter keep the B-21 as for air ground not air to air
    1
  470.  @daeladub  Which is how it should be used The F-22 and F-35 sends its target info and they send the ordnance to target
    1
  471.  @deansmits006  Lets EA-18Gs for starters The F-18 was designed from the start to use to air to ground. Even with all the changes, the F-14 still couldnt use the same amount of weapons as the F-18
    1
  472.  @NuclearFalcon146  Information warfare has been another area where Russian forces are hurting badly in Ukraine's access to starlink has hurt Russia's ability control information and thus why their propagandists and trolls are failing miserably They tried constantly prove that HIMARS were destroyed with so callled visual , then fell silent when Ukraine revealed that those were just wooden decoys Targeting the Patriot was supposed to be their propaganda victory but turned into yet another black eye
    1
  473.  @ch2onic  The fact that the Patriot was able counter them in them first place is the issue
    1
  474. ​ @TheGrowlingAraknid  Drones swarms are only problems to ill prepared defenses. The Iron Dome and Patriot are geared for missile attacks not drones The Flakpanzer Gepard went from scrap metal to rock star overnight and showed up effective gun systems are against drones Additional , The Leonidas Stryker is designed with high-power microwave weapon designed to counter drones en masse The Leonidas is just one a number of system being developed for drone swarms But also remember , intelligence is easy way to counter drones' With intel, if you know where the drones are coming from, you can kill them at source and prevent them from becoming a problem in first place Secondly, drone communication is two way,so again, if you can use the EW assets and back track to source Again strike at the source and deal with the drones before they can be used
    1
  475. Bet you the USAF is reconsidering the AMBER racks
    1
  476. If they chose it
    1
  477.  @Fng_1975  Fall from Glory: The Men Who Sank the U.S. Navy, Well that explains the source of your misinformation Lets gets the simple one out of the way First what is the author's credentials , he has none. Did he ever serve a day in military, no one, He's nothing more than investigative journalist making false assumptions. Randy Duke Cunningham who advocated for the Sup Bug over the Sup 21 Tomcat. Btw, he went to jail for receiving bribes from defense contractors. Vietnam War ace and Congressman Duke Cunningham criticized the Super Hornet as an unproven design that compromised air superiority. So why did the Duke change his mind Not because he was bribed Retired U.S. Navy pilot and Vietnam Ace, U.S. Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), took the throttle of the U.S. Navy's new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet on Saturday, Feb.7, flying the strike fighter for 1.3 hours. On the ramp immediately following the flight, Rep. Cunningham said, "I loved it! It's a great airplane!" He went to jail for receiving bribes from defense contractors which has nothing to with Boeing as if you actually read allegations not reading someone made up story He criticized the F-18E/F so Boeing allowed him to actually fly it. So once he got behind the controls and actually handled it, his perception changed as he actually handled the aircraft and found to be better than expected no one has come out against the book or it’s author since it was published in the late 90s and has been praised for its blunt honesty." You confusing the fact no one gave a shit about his book. The book was released Feb 26 1997,the F-18E/F entered low-rate production began in March 1997 with full production beginning in September 1997. So despite the book release and alleged acclaim for its ts blunt honesty, the plans for the F-18E/F went forward as no one gave a shit about it Quote "Grumman proposed substantial improvements to the F-14 beyond Quick Strike, but Congress rejected them as too costly and reaffirmed its commitment to the less expensive F/A-18E/F" The Secretary of Defense can make requests but its still up to Congress to decide. Cheney tried to defund the MV-22 ,however was overruled by Congress both times So solely saying that Cheney did it even close to reality. Next, here’s your DOD budget 101 class. Navy requests money and when they receive -WRONG instead of making asinine assumptions try actually reading it , you might actually something Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Materials Provides for a deployable battle force of 285 ships in FY 2023. Procures 9 battle force ships in FY 2023 (2 SSN 774, 2 DDG 51, 1 FFG, 1 LHA-6, 1 LPD-17, 1 T-AO 205, and 1 T-ATS-6) and 51 over the FYDP. Funds 4 other construction efforts (2 LCAC SLEPS and 2 ship-to-shore connectors). Aircraft procurement funds 96 fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and unmanned aircraft in FY 2023 (13 F-35C, 15 F-35B, 5 E-2D, 10 METS, 5 KC-130J, 10 CH-53K, 26 TH-73A, 3 MQ-4C, 4 MQ-25, 5 MQ-9A) and 420 over the FYDP. As I stated before, its completely different pots The USN didnt' choose wrong What conflict has the USN been in where the F-14 capabilities were needed , not one
    1
  478.  @johnsilver9338  The USN working on options for the FA/XX and F-35C. One such is the HALO which gives them carrier based hypersonic weapon but ultimately its going to be the AGM-183 ARRW on B-1Bs backed by FA/XX , F-35C and EA-18G with NGJ pods going after the Chinese DFs As long as the ARRW meets its designed speed of Mach 20 ,range of 1000 miles and carries at least 1000lbs warhead, The Chinese A2/AD would be moot As for Chinese SAMs, no much of a threat The HQ-9s are SARH guided and they are most definitely having buyers remorse after buying the S-400
    1
  479.  @johnsilver9338  The need the ARRW subsonic weapons don't have time sensitive strike capability At 900 miles away, an ARRW still only need 3 mins 36 secs How far can a massive DF travel in that time, may 2 miles A TLAM from that distance 1 hour 41 mins A TLAM would have to be 100 miles away but even than its 10 ish minutes and being that close is risky The ARRW's high speed and long range means that DF is screwed once its found
    1
  480.  @Clean97GTI  The F-14's weight problems are established facts
    1
  481.  @Clean97GTI  Again incorrect The F-18 was designed as a multi-role asset and can do considerable than the F-14 ever could For Anti-ship missions, the F-18 carries up 4x Harpoons whereas the F-14??? For SEAD, the F-18 carries AGM-88 or ADM-141 whereas the F-14 For Long range precision strike, the F-18 carried 1x AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER For Medium range precision strike , the F-18 carries 4X AGM-65 The F-18 was certified for the B-61 nuclear weapons as well could use both Zuni and Hydra rockets Whereas the F-14?? The F-14 abilities for air to ground were limited solely bombs The only thing that F-14 had over the F-18 was the AWG-9, AIM-54, TARPS and LANTRIN The AWG-9 and AIM-54 allowed the F-14 intercept both missiles and bombers While the APG-79 outclasses the AWG-9, the AIM-120D won't fully replace the AIM-54 till the AIM-120D-3 is fielded TARPS and LANTRIN won't be replaced till the USN fields the Litening pod to replace the ATFLIR The F-18 Block III increases differences massive The F-14 speed and range was not enough to keep. USN has performed well without it
    1
  482.  @Clean97GTI  That would be false The BRU still required the corresponding LAU unit for mounting. Second, the APG-71 has nothing to do with AGM-88 and or AGM-84 Weapons require interface via MIL-STD data bus and stores management system. Proposed is exactly that ,proposed not proven The USN lack of interest is why the F-14 was shelved. The F-15 for example by 1990 had enjoyed several upgrades whereas F-14 was still relatively behind The Bombcat was too little to late There is this thing called aerial refueling, only been around since the 50s Yes the Harpoon's 170mm range was shortcoming, the LRASM range is over 310 miles so much for that theory The MIG-29K couldnt touch the Hornet on its best day lets break all reasons this is the best joke you wrong First the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov has no AWACS able to spot the F-18 Their AWACS is the KA-31 helicopter and the newer KA-35. I will give you 3 guess on how well that radar works and its range here's a hint, its under 100 miles Secondly Russian ships with the S-300F system can only spot targets up 50 miles away The Kirovs with S-400 range again just 160 miles While AESA radar is common in the West, AESA is not common in the Russian military The MIG-29K Zhuk-ME is PESA and its range against aerial targets is 75 miles It par with APG-73 but outclassed by APG-79 Additional without EA-18G support, the APG-79 can simultaneously jam and target the MIG-29K The F-18 can carry 10 AIM-120s to the MIG-29K 6 R-77 Lastly the F-18 has been upgraded to Super Hornet whereas the MiG-29K is still very much junk FYI, thats not counting fact that F-18 has , E-2D and F-35 to back it up whereas the MIG-29K back up is the even more worthless Su-33
    1
  483. I would say solely for ISR at most
    1
  484. The simple answer is yes the Red sea much like the Gulf of Aden and eastern coast of Somalia is major shipping artery It been blocked or rendered unusable would be a major disruption for everyone. The plus side is that the APKWS II may be answer the USN and USAF are looking for dealing with drones and slow flying cruise missiles Allowing the SMs to engage the ballistic missiles but I am surprised that USN hasnt tried AIM-174 engagement yet in the Red Sea
    1
  485.  @megazombiekiller9000  They have less ammo because there cannons doesnt need a lot of rounds. For most applications 5-10 rounds Secondly most of those air forces have limited combat operations The F-111 is one of many instances of USAF aircraft weighing more than their naval counterparts Even if the F-15E and F-15EX weight more the F-18E/F
    1
  486. There is always going to be a trade off. Its just what trade offs are you welling to accept
    1
  487. Why people overhype training exercise as real world , the world will never know In training exercise where there are limitations and rules yes, in real world combat no
    1
  488. You are using the wrong metric The A-10 excels at CAS and Anti-armor but is not survivable in contested air space The F-35 does not have the A-10 capabilities but its far more survivable in contested air space The A-10 has no use beyond air to ground The F-35 can perform virtually any mission Th A-10 is basically the same drama that USN had to deal with it Congress made a massive stink over naval gunfire support (NGFS) with USN and their retirement of the Iowa-class battleships The USN like the USAF made its position clear but Congress refused to listen so to get them off their ass about it They agreed to give the DDG-1000 the AGS. When NGFS was finally declared moot, the USN had to clean up the mess The A-10 should be retired but Congress refuses to listen
    1
  489.  @countvonthizzle9623  its actually several factors Originally, the Argentinians had planned to go carrier to carrier with the UK however after the General Belgrano was sunk , their carrier ported itself the rest of the war Without their carrier , the Argentinians other problem was the FAF Mirages could not aerial refuel Instead trying to come up with a field mod, The Mirags went out with tanks and by the time they got to UK Fleet, they only had minutes till bingo fuel while Harriers had relatively full tanks which basically made it a turkey shoot The UK has been relentless in making sure that Argentinians cant get advanced aircraft but has relented as Russia is offering MIG-35s and China JF-17 as well possibly ,J-10 All of which would create problems similar because they are capable of carrying advanced weapons which was another issue in the war
    1
  490. Probably, the last tank the Army will buy
    1
  491. Its Iran they love to say everything is big threat
    1
  492.  @subjectc7505  Right so you wasted time and money building ship that Israel or the US can easily sink in as little as 1 bomb Not even worth using an anti ship missile
    1
  493. Single attack seriously There is sub commander in the USN looking at this ship through the scope and drooling knowing that trumpard is very likely to start something with Iran and even more likely to give the order to sink it
    1
  494. The simple answer possibly but only if they do it right
    1
  495. Better late than never
    1
  496. How about no The reason why the Brimstone was passed over was production In 2012, the UK received its 500th Brimstone In 2012 ,the US placed order for 24,000 Hellfires The Hellfire is used by USN, USMC ,USAF and US Army as well the CIA alone There was doubt that Brimstone could meet the US needs as the US orders hellfire generally by the thousands The MDBA to date has never delivered on that scale
    1
  497. As glorious as the A-10, its simple not the right tool for this job
    1
  498.  @whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707  Its more than firing HARM and longer range sensors , The A-10 is high subsonic while Russian jets are supersonic The A10 lacks radar while again Russian jets There is whole list of reasons why the A-10 is not the plane for this job
    1
  499.  @Chuck_Hooks  Aircraft require do require support but if Ukraine wants a realistic chance of pushing Russian forces out , they need aircraft Ideally the JAS-39 but they dont exist in the numbers that Ukraine needs so the only choice is the F-16 To get the F-16 up to speed only takes 4 months. The pilots go to nearest country with F-16 sim and start training Since they are already pilots, they simply need familiarization. 2 weeks in the sim. 2 weeks in the books 1 month of flying in the two seaters learning all the tech. 1 month solo flying and 1 more of practical application The norm is 12 months but if you condense it the essentials , 4 months is doable The maintenance personnel spend 4 months working along aside F-16 maintenance personnel in Poland They can learn the day to day requirements and troubleshooting very easily For more advance problems, western personnel can help and there would nothing Russia could say because they do the exact thing with their own aircraft that export Have advisors on hand for problems For weapons just keep it to the essentials. AIM-9 and AIM-120s for air to air. AGM-84 ASM and land attack. AGM-65s and GBU-10/12/24s for general purpose plus the gun The F-16 is rated at over 30 types of weapons,however Ukraine only need 5. The GBU-10/12/24 hardware is the same The F-16 has the CART which allows it use the drogue instead of boom for aerial refueling. The MIG-29s could be adapted in tankers for the F-16s No one denying that bring a fighter into service will be process but Ukraine needs them more than HIMARS Example, the Kherson bridge, The F-16 with GBUs or Mavericks would have knocked that bridge out in strike Russian ships docked in port again, smoked with a single 2000bls GBU-10 targeted at the waterline Russian airfields with KA-52, Mi-28 and MI-35s Two F-16s with 6 Mavericks or 6 GBU-12s , completely knockout in one strike
    1
  500.  @whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707  The A-10 can't use it as effectively
    1
  501.  @benghazi4216  There are ways to get the Gripen but it still boils down to numbers 150 F-16s is very easy as there over 4500 built and that would completely replenish the Ukrainian air force
    1
  502. The proposed F-14 variants never addressed the F-14 massive weight The F-18E/F in fighter configuration was only 1500 more than the F-14 empty weight There was no saving F-14
    1
  503.  @anthonykaiser974  No, i never the USAF made that call, they are just bone dead stupid for complaining about cost when there are too F-22. The F-22 cancellation was to due to short sighted people in the White house and Congress. By cutting procurement , they drove up individual unit cost. The F-15 and F-16 as a series has been flying for much longer
    1
  504. I never said that USAF made that call, it was made by short sighted people in congress and the white house The F-15 and F-16 as series has been flying for much longer
    1
  505.  @jeromebarry1741  Yes however In contested airspace, the F-16 vs Su-35 is 50/50 split whereas A-10 versus is 10/90 split with high odds of it being shot down
    1
  506.  @philsalvatore3902  it is
    1
  507. Its not that simple Look at the F-35B and AV-8B It they achieve VTOL by 4 point system The V-22 would need the same redesign
    1
  508. In simple terns China's Temu/Wish J-35 can never match the F-35 capabilities
    1
  509.  @Qwiv  Its combat, lives will always be at stake regardless. The scope is having options not only one option. The counter UAS , there are several systems in development First the Epirus' Leonidas high-power microwave (HPM) array mounted on which is designed counter drone swarming weapons. The system is currently mounted on IFVs Second USMC Ground-Based Air Defense which is 3 parts Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) is JTKV with 30mm cannon and 4 tube Stinger, MK-2 is L-Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) which radar/jammer on MRZR Lastly, the Medium-Range Intercept Capability (MRIC) which basically a mobile variant of the Israeli Iron dome And thats just the US There is massive push for counter-UAS weapons So yes, that is over reliance Secondly there are no other options The Amy dumped OH-58s in favor drones however in a contest airspace , drones would have problems operating effectively and the Apaches dont have the sensor payloads for recon Drones in Ukraine is highlighting the limits of Russian SHORADs They were designed to go after TLAM, F-16s , F-15s ,gunships and much larger UAVs Ukraine has few aircraft ,few cruise missiles and even fewer gunships so Russian defenses are facing threats they were not designed to handle The TB2 enjoyed success initially till Russian defenses got their act to together and that was that for it Ukraine itself, is using Flakpanzer Gepard to great effect against drones and loitering muntions Germany has developed the Skyrange 30 and 35 which are modernized Gepards but unlike the Gepard has both hard kill and soft for counter UAS
    1
  510. The only way the USAF could defeat Godzilla is rods from god and even then they would have to be accurate with the timing and targeting but it can be done
    1
  511. Its a 6th gen bomber
    1
  512.  @Defective1313  its different chart first and second generation were in WW1 3rd was WW-2 era emphasized heavier designs, bombs and as well newer bombsights for increased accuracy 4th gen emphasized nuclear strike with bombs and aerial refueling 4.5 added cruise missiles as well conventional strike capabilities 5th added stealth
    1
  513.  @Defective1313  The B--21 goal is to do everything the B-1, B-2 and B-52 does but better
    1
  514.  @kathrynck  Once production hits full steam the JAGM price will be under 150K
    1
  515.  @kathrynck  If they follow through with replacing TOW as well as making model able to be used by aircraft like the F-35, F-15EX and F-18E/F like the UK Brimstone The price could go even lower
    1
  516.  @kathrynck  True but the JAGM allows for time sensitive strikes While the Stormbreaker rely glide speed, the JAGM motor gets it to target within seconds
    1
  517. if Iran's radar was so capable, they wouldnt have shot down an airliner
    1
  518. @@ardashirshah7786 And then you woke from your dream
    1
  519.  @iraaus  How about no First air defense units are supposed update and confirm their position with HQ which gives them green light operate there was no human error with position, it was simply panic by the battery due its inferior tech Iran can track F-35 allegedly but cant tell the different between it and airline , sure , not As for your other statement about communication signatures Again no Secondly, the F-35 6 different datalinks for for communicating while in stealth including ultra high bandwidth communication
    1
  520.  @iraaus  No F-35 was hit Lebanon The propaganda on that ignored basic reality The claim was that S-200 hit F-35 The missile from S-200 carry 478lbs warhead A proximity detonation from missile like that would shatter any plane like glass Yet your claim is that F-35 withstood a hit from missile like that let that sink in
    1
  521. Yes by all means, lets listen to con artist trying to put money into his pocket
    1
  522. Never any doubt
    1
  523. All the more reason why the US need LRAAMS
    1
  524. Not exactly The Japanese kills were aided by the fact that the USN F4F Wildcat and Army Air Corps P-40 both vastly inferior to Zeros The kill ratio reverse when later model, F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair and P-51 Mustang as they outperformed the zero Secondly Japanese pilots complained that the Zero 7.7mm was problematic because better armored US planes could absorb a lot damage and still fly The 20mm cannon had not problem but their ammunition was limited compared to the 7.7mm Those complaints is why the Kawanishi N1K was solely armed with 20mm cannons Lastly, for reasons on unknown, the Japanese did not rotate pilots like the US They kept them on front
    1
  525.  @wedgeantilles8575  That thinking cost them dearly as without training or insight newer pilots didn't know anything about their enemy
    1
  526.  @znail4675  The lack of fuel was not problem for the Japan's air force. That was only a problem for their navy Zeros only needed 300 gallons of fuel while Japanese ships needed 1200 to 3500 tons of fuel per ship The fuel for one light cruiser was enough for 133 planes The fuel for one battleship was enough for 12,611 planes
    1
  527. The tail section was intact which didnt betray much other material and noise reduction methods If the cockpit , engines and forward section was intact, they would gotten more intel wise
    1
  528. I suspect what they are planning is a fleet of B-21 but also an low cost modern aircraft that can mirror the B-52
    1
  529.  @calvinblue894  Simple Boeing and Airbus have the regular airline market on complete lock down. The Chinese ambitions that their indigenous made aircraft can break that hold is nothing but a pipe dream. Russia companies barely get any business as far regular airlines go. China's hope is that it would give them an edge and possible break into the market but as Chinese aircraft dont have any sort of credibility its just a waste of time
    1
  530. The difference is that US is taking time where Russia and Chinese took the quick and road
    1
  531.  @tshavfengvang7831  No they are always about quick and easy The Russian and Chinese systems are extremely limited why the US system in mind allow 1 bomber to carry 20 plus missiles thats far superior to both Russia and China as well gives the US the ability to neutralize both their systems
    1
  532. The B-1R would be interesting prospect if they equipped it with AIM-174s , AIM-120D and powerful radar Effectively a true flying SAM site
    1
  533.  @nietkees6906  Not likely First with F-16s in the mix, it will take considerable strain off Ukrainian ground forces While hunting air defenses with F-16 can be challenging due fighter and AD , Ukrainian ground forces have already been destroy Russian air defenses equipment Hell just they smoked an S-400 site recently So with ground forces actively hunting Russian air defenses equipment, F-16s are free to support ground forces Since Ukrainian forces can easily tell F-16s from MIG-29s,Su-24, Su-25 and Su-27s, the Ukrainian air force can ground all those aircraft So ground forces instead of guessing will know to engage any of those aircraft on site
    1
  534.  @nietkees6906  How effective has Russian AD been so far Not very As far the F-16 , you forgetting key points Ukrainian, MiGs and Sus by modern standards are woefully obsolete The F-16s Ukraine will get a very much modern Their RWR, MAWS and EW is vastly superior to the MIGs and Sus they are using
    1
  535.  @nietkees6906  How kills does the S-400, at most 5 so far The reason why Russian air defense is keeping the Ukrainian force out of the fight is lack of weapons As far as precision guided stand off weapons, Ukraine has very little. The weapons they do have are unguided and require to get 1 to 3 miles of their targets which makes easy for AD Lets look at what the F-16 can do The GBU-12 can be launched from as far as 9 miles away and unlike the JDAM,. the GBU-12 is immune to jamming The AGM-65 can be launch from over 12 miles away and like GBU-12 is immune to jamming While the MIG-29 and Su-27 can use the AGM-88 at fraction of its capability, the F-16 can fully use the AGM-88 to max capability from 40 mile away At 40 miles, systems like the Pansir S1, Tor, Buk, Tunguska and other Russian SHORADs are now useless as the F-16 can accurately target them at the range which MIG-29s and Su-27 currently cant do With those out of the picture, the threat drops to S-300, S-400, as well Su-35 and MIG-31s with R-37s This where combined arms come in and grounds forces can do Ukrainian air force a solid and target the S-300 and S-400 sites Kinda of hard for S-300 and S-400 to go after F-16s when Ukrainian ground forces are dropping HIMARS and 155mms on them And that leaves up the few Su-35 and MIG-31s to try which a needle in haystack If Ukraine ground forces keep up the attacks against the S-300 and S-400, the F-16 will have free reign
    1
  536. @@JimCarner if Ukraine plays its cards right, the HTS will be moot
    1
  537. ​@@JimCarner The newer Blocks of the F-16 dont need the HTS as it been programmed into targeting pods and use the aircraft radar which has considerably longer range than HTS The EA-18G has HTS functionally built hence why you dont see the HTS mounted on it HTS is carry over from when aircraft needed to specialized for roles The newer but older LANTRIN can function as HTS with the F-16s radar
    1
  538.  @gups4963  Precision weapons from the US JASSM is maybe because the USAF as could send older model JASSM-A which would allow to buy newer JASSM-ER and XR models in place The SLAM-ER is no go as the USN has not brought a weapon to replace it yet. That was supposed to be the JSOW-ER but that was canx place of newer yet to built JASSM. The AARGM-ER and LRASM/JSM are too few number to even considered AIM-120C-5/7 is what Ukraine will get The newer models of Harpoon is also what Ukraine will likely get
    1
  539.  @gups4963  Reverting JASSMs to baseline software circa 2000s isnt that hard to do The US gives Ukraine 100 JASSM-A and USAF places order for 50 JASSM-ER and 50 JASSM-XR so it works out either way The AGM-88A-D is most likely but E and G not happening The US gave Ukraine PAC-3 MSE which most modern variant of the Patriot because the odds of it ending up in Russian hands very low Russia has been shown its searching the aftermath of Ukraine strikes looking for bits and pieces to see what was used So an intact AGM-88G in Russian hands is not something the US wants to deal with AIM-120C-5/7 and AIM-9R are still capable but old enough not to betray anything Same with JDAMs as well PAVEWAY, Maverick, Harpoon,and CBU-87/97 All capable but still old enough to not betray anything Now what the West should be doing is buying Israel's F-16i Sufa that Israel is trying to get rid of as well KC-130 The Sufa key feature is its use of CFTs Why that matters is that F-16 has CART CFT which allows to use drogue instead of boom for aerial refueling Israel's Sufa CFT are fitted wit advanced EW which Ukraine could piggy back of and a number F-16s like airborne jammers similar to EA-18Gs That would greatly increase their survival
    1
  540. @@JimCarner The LANTRIN has under gone some upgrades but compare to LITENING and SNIPER, its still very much older "Building on the LANTIRN’s success, Lockheed Martin would create an advanced targeting pod for fighters and bombers called Sniper, offering twice the resolution, triple the recognition range and 10 times the geopointing capability of the LANTIRN" LANTIRN ER, which is the latest LANTIRN production configuration, is offered as a newly fabricated pod, or as an upgrade to existing pods.
    1
  541. @@JimCarner Targeting pods carry the software needed for the HTS without the need for the HTS to be physical present
    1
  542. @@JimCarner I have provided plenty, you are just oblivious HTS was carry over from the 80s and hasnt been seen on any newer aircraft
    1
  543. @@JimCarner Dont have to the absence of it on newer aircraft is all that needs to be said the absence of it on the EA-18G again all that needs to be said HTS become moot as SAM range increased substantially
    1
  544. @@JimCarner Once again , already thoroughly backed The HTS is absent of newer aircraft as targeting pods have taken that role over
    1
  545.  @kamsunleong6648  They have no air force because both the US and Israel have taken care of that If they have no air defense how are they shooting down MQ-9s
    1
  546.  @AutoGreenz  The USA never bluffs
    1
  547.  @bobbyraejohnson  Yet he will do it anyway
    1
  548.  @viruspter1dactl  THe WS-15 by no means will ever match the F-22 F119 and the US has vastly superior anti stealth capabilites what aicraft does china have to test its anti stealth oh wait just 2 planes
    1
  549.  @voidtempering8700  You can actually prove the F-15EX is better than the J-20 The F-15EX is designed to use the F110-GE-129 If you count all the variants , the J-20 since 2011 has had 7 engine variants in 13 years The F-15EX can simultaneously carry Legion/IRST21 pod, Sniper XR targeting pod while carrying 12 AIM-120s with 2 JASSMs and still have room to carry the AN/ASQ-236 Dragon’s Eye pod centerline whereas the J-20 payload both in stealth and non stealth is less but most importantly, the F-15EX has gun while the J-20 does not While the PLAAF is tight lipped about the J-20 cockpit, we see the F-15EX is using a single wide area display backed by two Advanced Display Core Processor II (ADCP II) There is a long list of reason why the F-15EX is better than the J-20
    1
  550.  @PvtPartzz  Those aircraft 90 percent of time were flying with radar reflectors not in full stealth
    1
  551. Its simple , the F-18 has gone as far as it can go and its time to be replaced
    1
  552. its very likely that the US sent F-117s simply because Syria has an S-400 They likely put up RC-135 Rivet Joint and Combat Sent from Cyprus to monitor the S-400 reaction and emissions as the F-117 likely flew various profiles to get the S-400 to look in its direction Hence why Ukraine has been able to destroy the S-400 Hell I wouldnt be surprised of F-117s have been in Ukraine
    1
  553. The odds you are not going to see very much dog fighting in modern warfare The development of hypersonic weapons has made dogfighting moot You are not going to see F-35s versus F-16s they will be fighting Russian Su-27/33/35,57 and MiGs as well Chinese Su-27/ Su-35s and J-series Pound for pound, the F-35 has all advantages The US has Su-27s and MIGs which are used for training Thanks to Ukraine and Russian stupidity, The US also has sensitive tech from that Su-35 that pancaked into the field Example An EA-18 can jam the enemy radar while B-1s with ARRWs launch from 400 miles out An ARRW at its designed speed can cover that distance in 1 min 35 sec A B-1 can target defenses as well runways and taxi ways With those damaged, the enemy has to wait for combat engineers to repair the damage so they can get their planes in the air With defenses destroyed ,the enemy air force can be destroyed on the ground by F-35s up close or with coordinated strike with TLAMs or JASSMs Combat engineers have to clear the rumble, fill the holes and cover it matting , by time they get a hole filled, the strike second would be on them Even if they had assets in the air , The EA-18G and B-1 can leave before they get in range With China once their DFs are destroyed, the PLAN/PLAAF problems will increase The USAF can launch ARRWs from stand off range against their DFs and the only way to stop them is send their fighters out to 1000 miles which is exactly what the USAF/USN want them to do The PLAN/PLAAF aerial refueling capability is limited while the USAF/USN has ample tankers so it long range fight is advantageous for USAF/USN
    1
  554. The simple route is simply buy more AEGIS SHORE systems as well mobile launchers
    1
  555. The ARRW has had a string a of successful test behind it With HACM still untested and woes with LHRW Its still the only credible asset for now The most likely course is that barring disaster The US will buy a few till other programs mature or fail A win win situation
    1
  556.  @JSFGuy  They dont need Block 70 What they need is F-16s that can use AGM-65, PAVEWAYs, JDAMs. AGM-88 and CBU which most F-16s can do Now the US can really do Ukraine a solid and either intergrate Storm Shadow or KEDP-350 or better, give Ukraine some JASSM While ATACMS is iffy, the USAF has thousands of JASSMs and giving Ukraine the older models allows them to buy newer
    1
  557.  @JSFGuy  its not about range its about utility The AGM-65 is usable virtually any target Move the point,, IR and SAL which makes it immune to jamming
    1
  558.  @JSFGuy  Its shorter range but far better utility than AGM-88
    1
  559. Pretty sure the SR-71 could fly faster but due to technology it was built with, it couldnt sustain that speed in operational flights The thing that is great about the Darkstar from Top gun is that it has conventional engines for take off and scram jet for hypersonic flight Why thats greatly is the SR-71 pilots had a super bitch of a time keeping it slow enough to meet up with tankers
    1
  560. Yes but its money well spent Russia had convoy outside Kyiv that was hundreds of vehicles across 24 miles which was over 4000 vehicles Imagine being able to accurately target key vehicles like fuel trucks, munitions , food ,water ,air defense and communications Tanks cant fight without fuel or munitions Arty cant fire without munitions Air defense cant protect them from other attack aircraft
    1
  561.  @AgatBluvsky-ow9gp  All military matters are handled by HASC committees Cruz sits on none of those committees s why would the SecDef answer questions from someone he doesnt answer to Simple he wouldnt
    1
  562. All military matters are handled by HASC committees Cruz sits on none of those committees s why would the SecDef answer questions from someone he doesnt answer to Simple he wouldnt
    1
  563. All military matters are handled by HASC committees. Cruz sits on none of those committees why would the SecDef answer questions from someone he doesnt answer to Simple he wouldnt
    1
  564. Cruz sits on zero military committees
    1
  565.  @korana6308  Modern AAM have TVC allowing to effectively cope with aircraft equipped with TVC
    1
  566.  @user-McGiver  That was simply Cold war tactics
    1
  567.  @colbunkmust  generational designation applies to various items including bomber
    1
  568.  @colbunkmust  generational designation applies to tanks ,armor and so forth As time evolved, it didnt just stop with fighters During WWII, bombers were made by the US, UK, French , Italy, Russia and Germany Its 2025 Only the US, Russia and China can afford to make them
    1
  569.  @colbunkmust  And I would do that because ??
    1
  570. F-47 makes no sense it should have been F-36 or F-37 but the ball is in Boeing court now
    1
  571. @ nah
    1
  572. @ True but 47 is too much on the nose
    1
  573.  @lee.gallagher  its likely going a bird of prey possibly the Kestrel or Warhawk II its either going to be old name from WW2 or worst another on the nose towards Trump Fury would be good
    1
  574. if you pair with it Megawat reactor, it can do more than that
    1
  575. If Lockheed was smart, they would develop a 2 seat variant of the F-35 that can act as a Growler
    1
  576.  @kaourintintamine1383  Hence the perspective F-35E would need to be redesigned with pods for stealth and non stealth operations
    1
  577.  @kaourintintamine1383  Imagine you are tracking inbound missiles and boom, this jamming appears out of nowhere and you lose track its stops and now you lost track of the missiles By the time , you get your sensors back ka frecking boom a hypersonic missile has struck your radar and communications Those subsonic cruise missile that you were tracking were actually decoys The targets that you warned were not the real targets The EA-18G can be seen from hundreds of miles away where potential EF-35E can approach and stealthy take up key positions and blind the enemy more effectively
    1
  578. Enough with the drones and more of them working on bring the NGAD and FA/XX into service. If they keep playing this drone angle , they are playing into Musk hands that the military needs to cancel all manned projects
    1
  579. Not quite F-15EXs with ARRWs approach with EA-18Gs. F-35s , F-47s and B-21 approach in stealth One they reach their designated points, the EA-18Gs lay down jamming while the F-15EXs launch ARRW against the enemy's command and center. the F-35s with SIAW target their defenses and the F-47 proceed to engage all airborne assets while the B-21s start lobbing JASSM-ERs against all targets It well planned and time simultaneous attack Against air fields TLAM-D with submunitions would be better because it can target all the aircraft parked vs an F-15E with JAGM or GBU-53s having to target them
    1
  580. The lack of the BVR on the F-16 was the fact that Block 30 plus aircraft had started production and the USAF was transition. Secondly the F-16A was envisioned as dog fighter like F-15 but without BVR capability. You can thank the fighter mafia for that. You can also thank them for the resistance in adding AGC to F-16 as they believe that the F-16 should be a pure dogfighter while AGC would be handled by the A-10. By the time ,GD ignored their advice and added AGC to the later F-16 blocks RAAF had already secured the F-18 Most of the F-18 initial success stemmed from the F-16s short comings Granted the Israel air force helped changed the F-16s view in other eyes
    1
  581.  @196cupcake  No it makes no sense but what does make sense is China bribed him and then give him up The US has denied Taiwan access to more advanced tech due the fear of it falling into Chinese hands and this incident only reinforces that Everyone is trying to rack their brain about why they wanted a CH-47 but they actually didnt want it
    1
  582.  @ArizonaAstraLLC  The F-16 is alot of things but old isnt on of them
    1
  583. Even better way is to smoke them with ARRW
    1
  584.  @HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle  The DF-21 and DF-26 are massive launchers that are very easy to target with high speed weapon
    1
  585.  @startingbark0356  No , in China's case that exactly works, they tried to reserve engineer crap and develop halfed ass models
    1
  586. The simple answer is no, its too risky
    1
  587. Yes and no Yes thats not really cost effective but you use what you have
    1
  588. Russian turrets are setting new altitude records
    1
  589.  @ragnarulrichson778  Ukraine was losing When Ukraine supplies from the US ran dry Russia was making gains Now that Ukraine is resupplied Russia's good times are over
    1
  590. True AI can pull more G than human but so can missiles
    1
  591.  @michaelpuckett5317  G limits can always be overcome but 10 out of 10 times that aircraft will be damaged beyond repair
    1
  592. its likely that Boeing will possibly get both as means to save money as common design like the F-35 but i am rooting for Northrop
    1
  593. So basically the 7th generation on up will AI piloted But technology is not perfect Whats happens if that AI malfunctions Malfunction AI and 7th gen fighter in enemy hands intact is the worst possible outcome
    1
  594. Fusion power for aircraft dates back to earliest days of nuclear power, its wasn't feasible then or now As for Macross and Gundam Fusion power is the only realistic power source for both if you tried to build it real world Gasaraki TA very much realistic as they had very limited operational time of just 60 minutes and even with upgraded power cells, its still just 36 hours They had no over tech weapon, just basic auto cannons and missiles and even the model equipped with a rail gun still require a lot of time between shots
    1
  595. Carrier aircraft principal advantage is they are already there The FA/XX like the F-18 should have to flexible design to where an EA model can be built or the USN settles adapting the pods to the F-35C The USN does not need the ARRW but they are working at hypersonic weapon that the F-35 and FA/XX can use The HIMARS success is literally due to Russian incompetence and arrogance The simple is that they claimed that their KAB-series , SVP-24 Gefest and missiles were just as good as the US but at 1/4 cost as they claimed that Syria proved that Ukraine proved that to be 100 percent false HIMARS is functioning as poor man's strike aircraft , true but it still does not compare with aircraft if Ukraine forces had F-16s with its full range of weapons, things would be considerably worst for Russian forces
    1
  596.  @Chuck_Hooks  The C-130 and C-17 are way too valuable in their as transports.Carrying few cruise missiles does not replace bombers The USN tried using F-18s in place of dedicated tankers and look how well that worked out, they ended up burning up nearly 30 percent of their hornets The Rafale claims that its SPECTRA allow the Rafale to operate without dedicated EW aircraft. again no quite working out The value of dedicated assets can't be understated As far as unimaginable at this point that bombers will ever fly over a target Again incorrect, the whole point of SEAD/DEAD and CAD is to ensure air superiority As long as they are needed Its not about range or persistence , China's A2/AD depends solely on the DFs keeping the USN at bay The USN and USAF plan is the USN locates with F-35C and EA-18G while the USAF attacks the DFs with ARRW With them acting, the DFs have to relocated further inland which reduces their range at sea and allow the USN get closer The PLAN/PLAAF will send fighters which again goes back to carrier aircraft As their carrier is only 1000 mile away , a nominal speed its 2 hours in and out Land based aircraft can only come from SK,, Japan or AU There are plenty of advantages to carrier planes
    1
  597.  @korana6308  If they actually did they wont have any of the current problems they have now
    1
  598.  @korana6308  If Russia was using the Su-57 they would have no problem searching and destroy units on the ground Case in point The HIMARS has been a bane to Russia for 2 years yet only 1 confirmed loss with 2 damaged if the Su-57 avionics is as it claims it would have no problem finding them
    1
  599. That China only knows how to copy
    1
  600. The pilot Believe it or not when pilots get in actual combat against real targets, the adrenaline is pumping so hard they dont feel anything Also remember when someone is coming after you again that adrenaline is pumping and you are in another world because you are trying to survive
    1
  601.  @adamb8317  F-15 pilots from Desert storms accounts
    1
  602.  @thomasantn  Simple, the F-22 was cancelled and left with insufficient numbers to maintain US air supremacy. The F-15C is too old. The F-15EX is technically years over due but its not a front line weapon The F-35 isnt quite a air superiority asset. With the limited F-22s, supported by F-15EX and F-35 Can the USAF maintain achieve air supremacy in conflict, the answer is questionable Will airspace be contested , yes but the USAF has too few F-22s to do so The simple fact is that USAF no longer has technological gap that allowed it to comfortably maintained air supremacy So that 300 price may be high but its badly needed The USAF is long over due for technological upgrade that will allow it to comfortably maintained air supremacy for correct and future conflicts
    1
  603. Having actual capabilities is cheaper Russia's failure at the Battle of Antonov Airport highlights this fact The CH-53E/K , MH-60 and MH-47 can aerial refuel while the Russian Mi-17 and Mi-26 can't So instead of arriving with full tanks, they came in fuel limited The CH-53E/K can carry the tactical bulk fuel delivery system (tbfds) which allows them to refuel both vehicles and aircraft While the other aircraft refuel in the air For AH-64 and A/MH-6 can land to waiting CH-53s with TBFDS and refuel More the point, the USAF would set up FARP/Staging site 50 miles away large enough for MC-130 to land with armor Lastly, instead of striking precisely, the KA-52 was running and gunning 3 years later, KA-52 losses are over 60 and only dropping because they using the LMUR missile more and strike from long range instead getting up close were Ukrainian forces have been able to deal with them Lastly, Russia's saving grace has been its EW but also its curse because it shows thats it far easier to destroy the jammer than counter it
    1
  604. Bombers and fighters have different charts 1st gen and 2nd was WW1 By 3rd, you longer range, heavier loads and vastly improved bombs sight 4th was nuclear strike and aerial refueling 5th was balanced of both nuclear and conventional strike What makes the B-21 6th is its the construction method Rather than make brand new tech solely for the it They used derivatives of existing tech to give it capabilites that greatly exceed previous bombers B-52, B-1s and B-2 all had to undergo expensive upgrade programs for weapons, radars and sensors The B-21 already has the MIL-STD databuses and stores management system built in for conventional weapons Its possible that it has targeting pod built in like the F-35 does So its coming out of the gate with already able to use conventional weapons without having to be upgraded The B-2 APQ-181 is unique to it while the B-1 and B-52 use derivatives of F-16 and F-18s radar Its likely has an derivative of the F-35 APG-81 which gives it access to the same abilities as the F-35 radar, namely electronic warfare, and ultra high bandwidth communications. lastly its uses an derivative of the F-35 F-135 which its also possible for it use same growth options as the F-35 as well as the possible of using ADVENT engines in the future
    1
  605.  @colbunkmust  Procurement for the F-35C isnt a priority compared to the F-35A
    1
  606.  @colbunkmust  No, Lockheed right now is more concerned with the F-35A which is the cash cow than the F-35C If Canada had asked for CF-35C or the UK for the F-35C as they considering adding cat and traps to their carriers The F-35C might move ahead a little but the queue is the F-35A If Lockheed was smarter, they would privately build an F-35E two seater off the F-35C frame A two seater would appeal for training but most importantly a potential EF-35E for electronic warfare would appeal to basically everyone else especially the USN
    1
  607.  @colbunkmust  Incorrect. The F-35C between 2009 and 2016 was between 2 to 7 planes annual. Only 2017 did the USN and USMC for that matter starting making serious orders Secondly, the before the F-35C can hit the fleet, The Fleet Replacement Squadron has to have adequate instructors and pilots trained before the F-35C can move operational As I stated because the of the low procurement and USN decision with the F-18E/F , the F-35C intro severely delayed . The F-35C procurement is low while the F-35A is not As for the F-35s a while, LRIP-13 was first order over 100 planes , LRIP-12 was 91. The rest of planned LRIP are 120 planes plus. COVID has severally impacted FRP The FA/XX needs to adopt engines, sensors and other tech from USAF programs to keep costs down. if they go it alone , they wont get anywhere fast
    1
  608.  @colbunkmust  Delays are only going to hurt both programs badly
    1
  609.  @colbunkmust  The simple fact of the matter is that if the USAF had to engage Russia or China in air The battle would be iffy which is not good The USAF need to regain its dominance
    1
  610.  @colbunkmust  Its called facts
    1
  611. Wouldnt be problem if they simply built it
    1
  612.  @3373just  Thats point, the F-35 problems are not unique. Russia is struggling to get the Su-57 fully operational
    1
  613.  @Nas12223  Great is not the word for it The F-35 software requires 8 million lines of code while the F-22 is 1.5 The Su-57 is 4 million lines The J-20 uses few weapons is its software is likely in 1-2.5 million range if you combine all the corners China has cut just to get this far The J-20 is not that great
    1
  614.  @korana6308  How about no The Su-57 was built with multi capabilities similar to the F-35 but failed miserably. The J-20 is simply a corner cutting project
    1
  615.  @korana6308  Wrong on all counts multirole capability is built into newer generation of aircraft The concept of single role aircraft is effectively dead. Secondly the Tu-22 and Tu-160 only wish they could do a fraction of the what the F-35 can do Lets recap . For SEAD, the F-35 carries AGM-88s , Tu-22s KH-15, the Tu-160 has no SEAD capability. For air to air, the F-35 can carry up 6 AIM-120s in stealth or 10 missiles in no stealth, the Tu-22 and Tu-160s carries nothing. The F-35s the JAGM, SPEAR-3 and SiAW Again the Tu-22 or Tu-160s carries nothing Heres a news flash kiddo, the Tu-22 and Tu-160s are nothing but oversized missile carriers that have very little use beyond using long range missiles The USAF upgraded all its strategic bombers with conventional weapons allow them to us 80 percent of same weapons as smaller strike fighters Russia didnt upgrade its bombers which is why they have been largely useless in Ukraine Lastly Air superiority/ air dominance fighters again a dead concept in modern warfare what could is your Air superiority/ air dominance fighters when I can easily smoke them on the ground Since the late 90s, destroying the enemy on the ground is far more effective than trying to fight them on in the air
    1
  616.  @M16_Akula-III  5th generation aircraft are software defined. They dont use federated system like 4th gen aircraft. Those lines of code define the aircraft capabilities Case in the point, the F-35 operate 6 different data links allowing to communicate in various ways without compromising its stealth The F-22 on the other hand has to use Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN). The Su-57 uses the S-111
    1
  617.  @korana6308  No, it didnt start with the 4th generation multirole capability goes back as far as WW2 however afters there was change to make aircraft for specific missions or single role however it died out as the cost of aircraft rose The F-35 is not a bomber , its multi role strike fighter. The word bomber implies that it like the B-52, B-1, Tu-22 or Tu-160, thoses are bombers, the F-35 is not The F-35 can perform SEAD, CAS, LAND ATTACK, ISR, CAP , ASUW and EW, Not a bomber. The Kinzhal has been a nothing burger The US plans for hypersonics are vastly superior to both China and Russia The Kinzhal is limited to just a few assets while the US planning for all assets to be able to use the same weapon across the USAF, USN and USMC whereas the Kinzhal usable on just MIG-31K and Tu22M3 which dont exist in great numbers They are oversize and useless
    1
  618.  @M16_Akula-III  Simple Your airfield is 400 miles from the coast I have my ISR monitor when take off, refuels in the air and cycles as well defenses and communication location When your aircraft hit the tanker to refuel, my EW starts jamming while hypersonic weapons approach A mach 10 hypersonic weapon covers 500 miles in roughly 4 mins The first missile strikes comms, followed second strike on radar, missiles 3 and 4 strike the taxi ways, while 5-6 strike the runways With holes in your runway , it buys time for stealth aircraft or subsonic cruise missiles to deliver the coup de grace and destroy your air force before they can get airborne The EA-18G w can suppress an S-400 however the subsonic TLAM needs little over an hour to reach its target and there is no way an for the EA-18G to jam that long thats ample time for defenses to counter and even more allow your entire air force to get airborne and even worst, plenty of time for defensive fighters refueling to top up and engage With Mach 10 hypersonic weapon, that hour becomes just 4 mins which EA-18G can easily suppress an S-400 for that long With comms and radar knocked out, the aircraft in the air have no idea whats is going on. Israel's Spike NLOS can strike targets up 30 miles away and they made special forces launcher that carries 8 missiles and can be internally carried by CH-47, CH-53s or MV-22 Same situation, they knock out comms and radar as well put holes in the runways and taxiways grounding your air force till the holes can be patched and allowing time for larger missiles like JASSM or TLAM to strike before aircraft can get airborne There are dozens of variations but by knocking radar, comms and cratering the runways and taxiway, you can keep the enemy's air force grounded
    1
  619. Yeah its called Skynet and Legion
    1
  620.  @ncv-eu4rj  It would be AIM-6 as to not get them confused with each other confused
    1
  621.  @ncv-eu4rj  The RIM-7 and AIM-7 are very different missiles
    1
  622.  @ncv-eu4rj  It may not but but AIM-6 rolls off the tongue easier than AIM-174
    1
  623.  @ncv-eu4rj  The existence of the AIM-174B has bee confirmed now. Rather two NAIM-174 were flown out to carrier on F-18E I liked AIM-6 better But implications of an air launched SM-6 are huge
    1
  624. Ideally keep them around for air to air combat training
    1
  625. its not a surprise that was the logically next step
    1
  626. The EC-130H Compass Call and the newer EA-37B They dont have flight line aircraft, just support planes far back Ideally , they should look at make EA variant of the F-16
    1
  627.  @kameronjones7139  The F-35 has dominated in situations where it can maximize its stealth but what happens when that advantage is negated The F-22 lacks the F-35s advanced avionics but can easily hold its own in any range The NGAD needs the F-22s speed and agility as well cockpit visibility. The F-35 HMDS/DAS/EOTS /COMMS and weapons capability needs to carry over
    1
  628. facts
    1
  629.  @roblockhart6104  Yup It would have been a totally a new air frame design
    1
  630.  @bluemarlin8138  Yeah no This isnt the 40s Any harbor is basically a fixed target and easy to target With hypersonic weapons thats mere minutes Moving targets are considerably harder to target
    1
  631.  @michaelinsc9724  Hopefully they realize that mistake sooner than later
    1
  632.  @williamzk9083  Literally wrong on every count, the F-18E/F range is 450 miles while the F-35C range is 670 miles. So for starters , its range is not short Secondly there is this called aerial refueling, Depending on the mission and position of the ship, F-35 only need 1 while F-18E/F need at least 3 The USN whole investment with EA-18G is to deny the enemy the ability to use hypersonic weapons at long range Case in point, the DF-21 claims 1100 range. The USN can easily operate its F-35C from 1000 without worrying about DF-21 The DF-21 like all missiles still need its sensors to lock in to target as well communication to make sure it stays on target Thats kinda hard to do when both your sensors and comms are being jammed. In order to counter, the Chinese would have to deploy assets to counter EA-18G which again only ends badly for them
    1
  633. And the point is ? The F-35 is not the US military sole asset. its readiness is not factor
    1
  634.  @kdcustoms1272  HMS allow for off bore sight shoots allow pilots to shoot over the shoulder or even behind not useless
    1
  635.  @kdcustoms1272  The lacked HMS simply because of the budget constraints at the time. The F-22 is designed for all range combat not simply BVR By that logic, the USAF should removed the gun and AIM-9s
    1
  636.  @kdcustoms1272  No the F-22 is designed for all range combat, not just BVR
    1
  637.  @kdcustoms1272  Its easier when you understand fact The US experimented with OBS technology back in late 60s and early 70s to equip the F-14 with the AIM-95 and F-15 with AIM-82 The USN also developed Visual Target Acquisition System (VTAS) None were adopted The ATF started a few years later and none of it was added to the ATF When Germany provided the West with R-73 in 1990s, The crash program to add OBS began in the West however due to budget constraints from Cold War being over , the USAF couldnt get the funds to add it the F-22s The F-22 lacking OBS was short sighted ness by the USAF
    1
  638. Its not exaggeration its called a reality check Russia's favorite statement is that US weapons are exotic and expensive while Russian weapons are cheap and just as effective Now the reality check in Ukraine has shown how ineffective Russia's cheap weapons and how deadly US weapons are The Patriot going 2 for 2 against the Kinzhal was the biggest black eye since the loss of the Moskava Imagine know if a Su-35 or worse a Su-57 gets KO.ed by Western weapons
    1
  639.  @kathrynck  Sorry but no is buying the supposed misinformation, KA-52 losses have been visually confirmed as Su-34s Both are getting the shit kicked out of them T-90s have ended in western hands so Russia's only choice is getting the T-14 mass produced Russia has overused the Kinzhal and Patriot went 2 for 2 against it Russian's failurism as military force in Ukraine blatantly is clear
    1
  640. The B-21 seems like it can use more weapons than the current generation bomber Ideally, the J-20 and Su-57 think they have picked the B-21 and commit only realize via IRST they have been decoyed They radio back its decoy, , Their base screams at them to withdraw as their MAWS goes off Mis---- radio silence Their base sounds the alarm as they realized they have been played Ka-fucking boom as the base gets shredded by HACMs The B-21s approach , One carries ADM-160C MALD-Js and launches two waves of them One wave to up high and the other sea skimming the second carries the AIM-120 or AIM-260 The last two carry HACMs One the enemy fighters commit and pass the wave sea skimming, the pop up and start jamming The B-21s use the jamming to simultaneously launch against the incoming fighters and the enemy bases With the jamming present, they cant detect the B-21s opening their bay doors nor the missile launches
    1
  641.  @vic5015  The simple answer is yes Lockheed and MBDA combined solve that very quickly
    1
  642. The problem is that stupidity is taking root once again. Insufficient F-22 were due to cost and by the time they realized their mistake too late Now they screaming cost again because of Russia's inability to make the more Su-57 and China's problem with the J-20 tech How about we not wait for them to unscrew their program and get air dominance back to be uncontested
    1
  643.  @vmpgsc  The C-130J was never supposed be in the RAF but delays with the A400M made their purchase necessary
    1
  644. They could but it highly unlikely
    1
  645.  @Rob_F8F  The F-18E/F yes but they havent committed to a EA-18G variant yet
    1
  646.  @Rob_F8F  that is the hope but we need an actually plan
    1
  647.  @bogdagt  Smoke just about any target
    1
  648. @Roger Smodher Wrong on every count
    1
  649. @Roger Smodher Right, the US which has literally more stealth assets than all nation combined would magically how problems with Russia or China crap do you know how silly that is ?
    1
  650. @Roger Smodher Again No Su-35 or Su-57 ever got near F-22 thats literally progandana at its finest
    1
  651. @Roger Smodher Wow, you are like non spot propaganda machine of non sense
    1
  652. @@johngrey9780 ELINT and SIGLINT
    1
  653. @@johngrey9780 System are already cailberated for that speed ICBM and SLBM travel at hypersonic speed is what people seem to forget
    1
  654. @@johngrey9780 Yawn
    1
  655. @@johngrey9780 double yawn
    1
  656.  @etecarghakamallahiri432lah5  yawn
    1
  657.  @alexorehowski3387  YAAWWNNN
    1
  658.  @breadfahlifebreadfahlife9065  With the continued advanced of weapons and tactics Cost would be relatively low depending the weapons and tactics ATGM are getting long range and more portable. A coordinated SF strike where they simply put an ATGM in to radar and command truck would blind the site from incoming missiles Israel's Spike NLOS can be launched from over 30 miles away and be mounted small buggies They can salvo 4 missiles. thats the radar, command truck, missiles and other equipment out of action Ukraine is showing that strikes from the ground are far effective loitering munition more advanced that what Ukraine is using is another factor
    1
  659. its not a nightmare its cost effective to use the APKWS 22K per shot vs 2 mil for an AIM-9
    1
  660. With the F-22 , the F-117 became moot to operate in full forces hence why it was scaled back to limited numbers The F-117, F-22, F-35 and B-2 gives the US a lot of aircraft to due Dissimilar air combat training (DACT) with As China and Russia are building stealth aircraft, the US has plenty to aircraft that dissimilar enough to get good training on
    1
  661. Yup Thats to advances in technology, its smaller but far more effective
    1
  662. Could the US add a kill switch yes but doing so would tank their ability to see weapons permanently
    1
  663. The F-117 was designed for maximum stealth, it so cant use air to air weapons
    1
  664. Heat seekers are countered by Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) which instead wide band jamming ,they used a focus beam to essentially fry the seeker DIRCMs are getting stronger emitters but ultimately its still a battle between measure and counter measure MAWS and RWRS work by detecting the missile and radar emission , AESA emissions are extremely hard to spot and missile are using more composites to make them stealthier Ultimately, in place of of flares, they need an active protection system (APS) similar to tanks that can launch small missile with payload similar the 35mm AHEAD round that releases a lethal spray of small fragments to destroy the missile
    1
  665.  @trumanhw  AIM-174 doesnt weigh 3300lbs The complete SM-6 package weight 3300lbs however the AIM-174 lacks the MK-72 booster which weighs 1500lbs alone so the AIM-174 only weighs 1800lbs Secondly AIM-174 job is giving the USN the ability to defeat Chinese DF-21/26s as well Russian Kinzhal and Zircon weapons The AIM-174 retains the SM-6s 140lbs warhead which unlike AIM-120 or AIM-260, the AIM-174 is usable against all airborne threats including hypersonic missiles The USN problem is defending its ships from hypersonic weapons. While the SM-6 block II and GPI are slated to give them that capability, they are still limited in range Adding an AIM-174 allows USN aircraft to engage threats long before they reach the fleet The concept is using Command and Control Battle Management Communications (C2BMC) as external sensors to engage threats at long range. The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with E-2D at medium range and SPY1/6 at short range So instead of seconds, they have minutes The AIM-260 job is expanding the AIM-120 capabilities with longer range , better and improved seeker against low rcs targets as well use of newer technology while retain the AIM-120s size.
    1
  666.  @philsalvatore3902  The AIM-174 in the images show a weight of 1863 marked on the side The pylon used can easily carry 3300lbs but the AIM-174 isnt that heavy
    1
  667. of course it did
    1
  668. Several reasons besides poor flying skills and judgement
    1
  669.  @I_Stand_With_RussiaZOV  Ah yes, the famous Russia is fighting 53 countries How exactly does not matter when Russia borders Ukraine The US traveled 7000 miles 3 times to middle and sealed the deal in weeks Yet Russian with Ukraine right there cant seal the deal after 3 years
    1
  670.  @I_Stand_With_RussiaZOV  Apparently you cant read Those 4000 aircraft by the time Russia started gettings its butt kicked were scrap that hadnt flown in decades
    1
  671.  @williamlloyd3769  As the Red Sea has shown the MQ-9 is not survivable even with EW pods they need the MQ-20
    1
  672.  @jdo8405  The USMC has been divesting a lot of equipment so yes they have the money for it Remember they give up the EA-6Bs, Abrams , gunships and so forth. Hell even USMC M777s and HIMARS are being divested Ironically Ukraine has highlighted the weakness of both systems
    1
  673.  @jdo8405  The TLAM is better than HIMARS for several reasons but the biggest is that its immune to EW
    1
  674. ​ @triggerpointtechnology  Thats why I said Gasaraki In Gasaraki, the first Generation Raiden only has 60 min operational time Later in the series, the second generation Shinden based on lessons learned from Raiden operational time is 36 hours due to improved battery tech With current tech They would use the Telsa battery by at 1/50th size I say about 23-30 inches in length at and 1/2 to 1 inch thick Just enough power ,radio, optics, sensors , computers and laser designator possible a short range radar The basic hydraulics can handle recoil for weapons but no one is lifting cars anytime soon It can be easily made but people will have to understand reality over the movies
    1
  675. The difference that was combat ,this was training
    1
  676.  @octagonPerfectionist  The whole reason this happened is because their range is not clearly marked . In the US, range control are clear so the pilots always know their position on the range They are tall towers with flags and brightly marked that pilots can clearly see
    1
  677.  @triadwarfare  Simple When you see the towers, you know its training when you open country, you know its for real that simple
    1
  678. The F-16 never considered. The USN was trying to get away from single engine as the engine technology at the time was still unreliable
    1
  679. A missile with built in cannon Wont work DARPA has already developed the CHAMP which is a JASSM equipped with HPM weapon which show that direct energy weapons from missiles are possible and useful but the JASSM is massive missile Shell based weapon wouldnt work
    1
  680.  @IronBroccoli  The advantage of the GBU-53 is to accurate targeting When Russia had it convoy outside of Kyiv, its was over 30 miles long with over 4000 vehicles With GBU-53, you can target vital assets such fuel trucks, munitions, water, food, SHORADs , Jammers and key weapons like tanks , MLRS and artillery guns With munitions, its just luck of the draw Instead needed hundreds of munitions all targets, you accurately target the assets that they cant operate without Ideally, the US does need to either buy or adopt the UK SPEAR-3 design as its powered so its able to carry out time sensitive strikes up 90 miles away They also need to revisit JSOW-ER as the JSOW has modular warhead options from a unitary 500lbs warhead, submunitions and the BROACH for hard-target penetration with range of 280 miles Ukraine has show how effective all 3 types of warhead options, particularly submunitions are a bane to airfields as Ukraine has destroy a lot russian helos on the ground Of the 61 KA-52s lost, large number have been from ATACMS strikes
    1
  681.  @IronBroccoli  The GBU-39s stock would be used first and the GBU-53 in limited use but US does need the SPEAR 3 as its powered
    1
  682. The smarter play would have been to add a strike length VLS plus the APM
    1
  683. No The reason why the Brimstone was passed over was production In 2012, the UK received its 500th Brimstone In 2012 ,the US placed order for 24,000 Hellfires The Hellfire is used by USN, USMC ,USAF and US Army as well the CIA alone There was doubt that Brimstone could meet the US needs as the US orders hellfire generally by the thousands The MDBA to date has never delivered on that scale
    1
  684. So you basically have no idea what you are talking about, more the point, you are a chinese troll First one, we dont say " we have four shipbuilders in the United States of America People from the US say, the country only has 4 shipbuilders or in the US , there are only 4, The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you Secondly, the countering Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), has already been done, The head of the US Missile Defense Agency has long stated that the SM-6 is capable of intercepting ASBM in terminal phase. The goal of the SM-6 Block IB program is increasing the SM-6s range so it can perform longer range interception of hypersonic weapons allow for mid course interception in addition to terminal phase. Additionally, the point of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is reducing the time it takes for ships and aircraft to to engage incoming threats. Lastly, the USN revealed the AIM-174B which is air launched variant of the SM-6 The AIM-174 gives the USN the ability to down Chinese tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets from over 250 mile away. The F-18E/F can carry 4 Combined with the SM-6 block IB, ASBM as well Chinese aircraft are not a threat to the USN and thats counting the host of improvement like that C2BMC program which allows USN ships to fire missiles and hand them off to off ship assets like the THAAD and Patriot sites The point of C2BMC is even if J-16D or 15D jammer managed to build USN ship radar, they can use someone else sensors to fire with ​ @Spearhead45
    1
  685. So you basically have no idea what you are talking about, more the point, you are a chinese troll First one, we dont say " we have four shipbuilders in the United States of America People from the US say, the country only has 4 shipbuilders or in the US , there are only 4, The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you Secondly, the countering Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), has already been done, The head of the US Missile Defense Agency has long stated that the SM-6 is capable of intercepting ASBM in terminal phase. The goal of the SM-6 Block IB program is increasing the SM-6s range so it can perform longer range interception of hypersonic weapons allow for mid course interception in addition to terminal phase. Additionally, the point of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is reducing the time it takes for ships and aircraft to to engage incoming threats. Lastly, the USN revealed the AIM-174B which is air launched variant of the SM-6 The AIM-174 gives the USN the ability to down Chinese tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets from over 250 mile away. The F-18E/F can carry 4 Combined with the SM-6 block IB, ASBM as well Chinese aircraft are not a threat to the USN and thats counting the host of improvement like that C2BMC program which allows USN ships to fire missiles and hand them off to off ship assets like the THAAD and Patriot sites The point of C2BMC is even if J-16D or 15D jammer managed to build USN ship radar, they can use someone else sensors to fire with ​ @Spearhead45
    1
  686.  @Spearhead45  So you basically have no idea what you are talking about, more the point, you are a chinese First one, we dont say " we have four shipbuilders in the United States of America People from the US say, the country only has 4 shipbuilders or in the US , there are only 4, The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you Secondly, the countering Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), has already been done, The head of the US Missile Defense Agency has long stated that the SM-6 is capable of intercepting ASBM in terminal phase. The goal of the SM-6 Block IB program is increasing the SM-6s range so it can perform longer range interception of hypersonic weapons allow for mid course interception in addition to terminal phase. Additionally, the point of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is reducing the time it takes for ships and aircraft to to engage incoming threats. Lastly, the USN revealed the AIM-174B which is air launched variant of the SM-6 The AIM-174 gives the USN the ability to down Chinese tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets from over 250 mile away. The F-18E/F can carry 4 Combined with the SM-6 block IB, ASBM as well Chinese aircraft are not a threat to the USN and thats counting the host of improvement like that C2BMC program which allows USN ships to fire missiles and hand them off to off ship assets like the THAAD and Patriot sites The point of C2BMC is even if J-16D or 15D jammer managed to build USN ship radar, they can use someone else sensors to fire with ​ @Spearhead45
    1
  687. So you basically have no idea what you are talking about, more the point, you are a chinese t First one, we dont say " we have four shipbuilders in the United States of America People from the US say, the country only has 4 shipbuilders or in the US , there are only 4, The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you
    1
  688.  @Spearhead45  there’s no arguing that the United States Air Force in the Navy is the largest in the world in China Again with the giveways There is no United States Air Force in the Navy there clueless one, its called Naval Aviation
    1
  689.  @MostlyPennyCat  The focus is trying to negate Chinese forces in air as they lack the numbers to face off against the USN The focus on weapons like the SiAW, MAKO and HACM as well the AIM-174 , AIM-120D FR3 and AIM-260 to negate Chinese capabilities Chinese's strategy relies solely on DF-21s against the USN fleet and DF-26s against Guam Guam has ample defenses to deal with the DF-26s but USN needs SiAW , MAKO and HACM to negate the DF-21s, radar site and SAM sites The F-35 uses its stealth and EW to locate the DF-21s and forward back to F-18s with HACM to engage while using the SiAW or MAKO its carrying knock out radar sites PLA cant shoot who they cant see The AIM-174, AIM-120DFR3 and AIM-260 take out Chinese tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets The PLA and PLAN will attempt to do the same with their missiles against US tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets But again its numbers and China doesnt have them
    1
  690.  @mojothemigo  The simple fact its modern warfare and more efficient for the B-2 to carry the heavy load while F-22s knock out the enemy's fighters. The EA-18G and F-16CJ against their defenses and the F-15E launching JASSM against their bunkers and command posts The F-35s role is using SiAW or MAKO against land based jammers, mobile launchers and other high mobile targets that pose a possible threat to the B-2s Combined with other assets, you dont need a large strike package of F-35s A few armed with SiAW, MAKO, GBU-53s and JSOW with BROACH and BLU-97s for target suppression to allow the B-2 to get range and deliver the KO out blows
    1
  691.  @area51z63  Very true Any conflict with Russia or China is start off with massive stand off attacks again vital to targets with both sides trying to gain traction before the other
    1
  692.  @area51z63  Its called modern warfare The F-35 can neutralize the enemy's defenses allow the B-52s to either come over heard strike from long range 1 B-52 can carry up 20 cruise missiles while the F-35 can only carry 2 missiles while in stealth so why bother with waves of F-35s when its move efficient to use combined arms
    1
  693.  @area51z63  No, they are making the F-15EX to fill the void with the F-22 and F-15C not the F-35. The USAF has too few F-22s and the F-15C obsolescence has been known for a long time Even if the NGAD is delayed, the USAF can still retire its entire F-15Cs fleet in favor the F-15EX The F-35s can fill the void temporary along side the F-22s till the NGAD is operational Its clear that the USAF and USN need to work together with the respective programs NGAD and FA/XX to get a common design approved and built
    1
  694.  @Spearhead45  The F-35B principal advantage for the USMC and US military as while is the fact is can perform force dispersal. The USMC did a training exercise where as F-35B landed on austere landing strip. A CH-53 carrying tactical bulk fuel delivery system (tbfds) refueled it while crew pulled weapons from a second CH-53 effectively demonstrating the F-35B ability to be land any were and be refueled and rearmed So in potential conflict , anywhere for the F-35B is a potential FARP site but please continue how its the worst , the only issue that the USMC needs for the F-35B is internal cruise missile with 300 mile range and 500lbs warhead
    1
  695. War games do not mean anything Case in point, The USMC has fired HIMARS from the decks of LPDs You combine that with the newer PrSM and that makes any LPD into missile carrier Additionally the USMC has both the NMESIS and ROGUEFIRES mobile launchers which use the Naval strike missile and Tomahawk cruise missile You combine these 3 plus the Rapid Dragon which turns any C-130 and C-17 into a cruise missile carrier multiples China problems in potential conflict with the US Lastly, the Guam recently tested the Aegis Ashore with the SM-3 validating Guams ability to defend itself against Chinese DF strikes
    1
  696.  @Spearhead45  Again wrong The USN would never lose multiple carriers.The whole point of the of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with the SM-6, F-18 and F-35 engaging the enemy before they get the chance.Kinda hard for the enemy to launch a saturation attack when you are destroying their ability to do so in the first place instead trying to vainly fight off their attack Why wait for the bombers to get airborne with missiles when you can easily destroy its base Why wait for the enemy ships to put to sea when you can again attack them in port why allow the DF launchers to get in position Simpe , they wont
    1
  697.  @Spearhead45  The point is that you keep posting 100 nonsense A CVN is crewed by 5000 plus A nominal aircraft load out 90 planes It literally takes 5 years to build and 2 more to become operational and you are posting that USN is magically going to accept quote losing "multiple carriers" The principle reason the USN is heavily invested in long range weapons so its aircraft can strike effectively without any risk to carrier, The whole point of giving the F-18E the AIM-174 so say they can knock out the enemy's assets before they have the chance to strike
    1
  698. And you dont understand what modern warfare is Why do I need a dedicated air superiority fighter when tactics, planning and weapons allow me to easily destroy the enemy's air power on the ground Surface to air missiles are still a threat as they mobile and can be sent anywhere Aircraft need an airfield which fixed and easily targeted The Army has tested the 1700 mile Dark Eagle twice and the Zumwalt in back in the water after completing its mods to carry the Dark Eagle These two critical steps makes the F-35s job all that much easier ​ @Spearhead45
    1
  699.  @Spearhead45  Wrong The JATM is listed at as least 120 plus not 120 miles Raytheon developed two longer variants of the AIM-120 , the D-3 and AXE The D-3 is range is over 110 miles which make it impossible to justify the JATM program if it range was only 10 miles more Quote One improvement is extended range and time of flight. “It’s almost double in the range of what AMRAAM flew before,
    1
  700.  @Spearhead45  And you dont understand what modern warfare is Why do I need a dedicated air superiority fighter when tactics, planning and weapons allow me to easily destroy the enemy's air power on the ground Surface to air missiles are still a threat as they mobile and can be sent anywhere Aircraft need an airfield which fixed and easily targeted The Army has tested the 1700 mile Dark Eagle twice and the Zumwalt in back in the water after completing its mods to carry the Dark Eagle These two critical steps makes the F-35s job all that much easier
    1
  701.  @Spearhead45  As yes the typical clueless remarks Ukraine using US made weapons have engaged the Russian S-300 and S-400 and destroyed both several times , There is thing called intelligence ,try it sometime For example The USAF routinely sends RC-135 Rivet Joint and Combat Sent to study the so called advanced surface-to-air missile systems from long The info that it gathered from those flights is handed over to companies such as Raytheon and Northrop who make the AGM-88s Using that data, they make the adjustments to the missiles seekers. The MIG-29 and Su-27 as well as several other captured pieces of Russia equipment has ended up in the US several times Most notably from Ukraine to the US, Krasukha EWS, recovered pieces of the Khibiny as well Pantsir missile systems The US got one export variant from Libya and several captured examples from Ukraine So your so called advanced surface-to-air missile systems are have been severely compromised by the US Engaging terrorists in mountainous terrain is a far cry from battling a legitimate military force-WRONG lol Engaging those terrorists give the US ability Russia only wishes it had The KA-52 has suffered staggering losses due its lack of precision weapons, Only when they started using the LMUR missile, did its losses drop off The US learned its lesson in those mountainous terrain and adapted the AH-64 capabilities so to strike precision from range without getting in range of the enemy weapons but most importantly, AH-64 complained about finding enemy forces but unable to effectively engage them with the Hellfire so newer variants of the Hellfire were developed for anti personnel and other thin skinned targets The MQ-9 can orbit for 10 hours with a load of missiles and bombs Russia has not such capability and has to heavily rely on getting lucky with Lancelet drones Russia so called attempt with the S-70 failed miserably
    1
  702. Here's new flash kiddo The US has no peer The USAF has nearly 150 strategic bombers backed by over 100 tankers but most importantly they are modernized and the USAF has demonstrated its ability to send the anywhere. The Russian air force has just 129 strategic bombers backed by only 20 Il-78s tanker. of its bomber forces, they only very very few Tu-22M3, Tu-160M2 and Tu-95MSMs The Chinese air forces operates 250 plus Xian H-6 bombers which are barely considered bombers due to their limited range and payload and like Russia, Chinese very few tankers able to send its bomber force on long range intercontinental strike The USAF has its next gen B-21 already built and in flight testing Chinese Xi'an H-20 and Russia's PAK DA are still being built The USN has been steadily building Virginia class subs while Russia's Yasen is so expensive they had to cap production at 12 boats and China has very few SSNs And thats just a fraction of things
    1
  703.  @Spearhead45  Here's another Christmas present for you The USAF has 600 transports for strategic air lift and thats not counting USMC and USN assets The Russia air force has 250 and Chinese air force 120 The short comings of Russia's strategic air lift capability have been painfully obvious in Ukraine For heavy strategic air lift , the USAF has 50 plus C-5M active to Russia's 12 AN-124 active and the rest in storage The PLAAF only asset is the Xian 20 and its not true heavy lifter In peer level engagement, the ability to move heavy equipment to any point is vital to combat operations The USAF has ample transports to support rapid movements whereas Russia and China have very little Here's another tidbit, KC-135, KC-46 and the retired KC-10s are designed with split cargo holds allow them to carry cargo in addition to fuel or being used as cargo hauler as needed Again capabilities neither Russia or China has
    1
  704.  @MostlyPennyCat  APG-68 wouldnt be out of the cards but weapons is the key here
    1
  705.  @MostlyPennyCat  No The most important weapon is the AGM-88 by far The F-16 can fully use the AGM-88 which means EW suites and everything short of S-300, S-400 and Buk-M3 can be easily targeted The US can do Ukraine a real solid by providing JASSM-A baseline, JSOW, MAVERICK, and AGM-84. While France and the UK have a limited stock of Storm Shadow/SCALP, Uncle sam had 2000 JASSMs in 2016 Fairly sure they can part with 200-300. The JSOW can submunitions. The MAVERICK is great for all target and lasting the AGM-84 would allow Ukraine to hunt the Russian navy in deep water
    1
  706.  @dgthe3  That and without EW GPS munitions are back in business
    1
  707. With the advent of longer range missiles, it makes more sense to use a transport The next gen of tankers and transports will be much stealthier so makes more sense to use one of those a flying airborne command and control for drones that only a few miles behind the strike group
    1
  708.  @snugglecity3500  B-2s are the size of AWACS but posses an RCS substantially smaller The design would be similar to the B-2 just enlarged some areas to accommodation additional crew and equipment but still maintain the lower RCS
    1
  709.  @snugglecity3500  In this case , its really not a race The measure vs countermeasure race has been going for decades but its reaching it peak The newer generation of air to air missiles have seekers accurate enough that they can target incoming missiles both air to air as well SAMs It wouldnt been surprising if tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR aircraft get stealthy enclosed weapons pods (EWP) mounted on the wings to carry missiles for self defense That kinda makes it hard for Russian and Chinese aircraft to one shot with long range AIM Also remember that various companies are testing airborne laser pods for missile defense While it may be problem for fighter size aircraft, tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR have ample space to house 150kW-300kW weapon or even simpler is that you take transport and fit it with 500kW to have it act as shield to deal with incoming missiles Will it force enemy aircraft to engage visually , not likely because due the range of AIM-260, AIM-174 and AIM-120D FR3, they would only get one shot off before someone targets them
    1
  710.  @dgthe3  Russia's lack of synergistic approach and systematically wasting time is why they are losing so badly
    1
  711. In the end, Russia was all bark and no bite
    1
  712. Not Necessarily true the simple and cheap route is just buy a few more AEGIS ASHORE as well develop mobile launchers that can carry up 16 PAC-3s or 4 SM-6 There many ways to reuse existing weapons to keep the price down
    1
  713. ​ @M16_Akula-III  Unless they design the ASHORE launcher with simple system where once the missiles are expended, the empty cells slide down and out and fresh cell comes forward and up They need mobile launchers that can take over while the main launchers reloads The Typhon launcher for example can hold up 4 SM-6s and the Army has it set up with 16 missiles across 4 launchers Two launchers with quad packed PAC-3s and 2 with SM-6s The SM-6 block II are better equipped for BM and if you want expanded capabilities , certify the Typhon with the SM-3 Both the SM-6 and SM-3 are excellent at BM
    1
  714.  @M16_Akula-III  Incorrect Alaska would need 3 Hawaii 1 West 5 East 6,- One for DC specifically Gulf 3 and lastly 4 for the Mid country So at most 22-24 Now if you went with complete MK-41 ASHORE, possibly 50 billion Now if you went radar and Typhon launchers The SPY-7 aka Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) 1 Hawaii 3 on each coast plus 1 in the Gulf and DC Alaska already has one so say 12 radars, you are only at 10 billion Plus 100 Typhoon launchers is 18 billion So additional 2 billion for set up and software 30 billion The current Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), cost between 30-40 so the key factor is existing weapons that would be resused which would lower cost
    1
  715.  @M16_Akula-III  For complete coverage using Aegis Ashore for 24 units is 50 billion using combo SPY-7 and Typhon is 30 billion But there are also existing defenses that can lower the cost Example the Ticonderoga class carry up 122 missiles and there was proposal where they build docks and moor the ships to act as missile batteries
    1
  716. Fusion powered aircraft just sounds incredibly dangerous as far as safety goes
    1
  717.  @LamarPro1  Beating what exactly The F-16 has very little in terms of air to air combat Its strength in air to ground not ACM The F-15 both US and Israel hand has been the dominate fighter The Eurofighter , Rafael and Gripen had nothing to do beating the F-16 and everything about designing a capable aircraft For Eurofigther, it was a successor to the Tornado For Rafale, it was either that or the F-18 For Gripen , Saab was designing an aircraft for Swedens needs
    1
  718.  @LamarPro1  That would be false The F-15 is just as agile as the F-16 The DCS players like to claim that but in real world combat, the F-15 reigns supreme
    1
  719.  @LamarPro1  And when has that actually mattered numbers and real world combat are two different things The MIG-29 on paper has better performance than F-15 yet the F-15 has handed the MIG-29 its ass both in WVR and BVR The F-16 has better specs than Mirage 2000 yet the Mirage has downed an F-16 Turkey has lost a few F-16s to Mirages
    1
  720.  @LamarPro1  The claim was that F-16s changed air to air combat. Thats literally false. The F-16 true strength came from air to air ground not air to air Now yes, the F-16 did incorporate a lot technology , design and technology as did the F-20 and no the F-16 was not the first aircraft to use HOTAS , that was English Electric Lightning But again, none of that matters as the F-16 is not the dominate air to air fighter , All rounds still lead to the F-15 and the F-16 is still better at dropping bombs than ACM
    1
  721.  @LamarPro1  How exactly did the US have better trained pilots when the last time the USAF engaged in large scale combat was in 60s while the bulk of Iraqi pilots were combat veterans from the Iran-Iraqi war Now to quote General Horner, the Iraqi air force was very capable and pulled off a lot great missions during the Iran-Iraqi however their major weakness was they were heavily controlled by the ground and secondly, they lacked AWACS and relied on ground radar The US exploited those weakness and for majority of the engagements, the USAF was always in the driver's seat Yet in those encounters, the F-16 despites its called specs failed
    1
  722.  @LamarPro1  Ironically that nothing to do with losses First , the aircraft lacked cannons Lack of cannon is why many NVA pilots escaped death During the Korean war, the A-1CM gunsight-AN/APG-30 radar give pilots a decisive advantage yet when F-4s finally got guns, its lacked the precision Secondly USAF deployed heavy jamming which completely blinded NVA comms but US intel in their infinite wisdom ordered the USAF to stop claiming listening to NVA was worth it NVA pilots heavily relied on GCI Most importantly the AIM-9 and AIM-7 poorly designed and tested even worst conditions that were no even close to real world conditions During the Korean war, most of the commanders were combat veterans from WW2 and listened to input from the forces on front. In 60s most of the commanders were ones who flew desk most of their careers Pilot training was a factor but not the only one As stated before, the USAF exploited the Iraq weakness which why they were so successful
    1
  723.  @LamarPro1  Red Flag and Topgun were number 4 of 6 problems with aerial warfare in vietnam The point of both is make sure skills and training are passed on but both are moot if the aircraft they are flying are not up spec US problems with aerial warfare not solely pilot training nor was it biggest issue
    1
  724.  @mortarman81guns  The F-16 changes multi role not air combat The F-15 changed air to air it successfully applied BVR ,WVR and GUN into one package
    1
  725.  @reway8750  Again with the denial and that has what to do with China's shit capabilites as far military goes nothing Sinovel and ASMC is fine example of China's growth
    1
  726.  @donkoh5738  The F-22 came at time where it was hard for the military to justify programs as well as having the wrong people in positions
    1
  727.  @donkoh5738  Its hard to any of that when you dont have the right people in the right position
    1
  728.  @jamesmaddison4546  The current of tech means that trip will take months The problem there is that requires a lot of fuel and resources Keeping them alive is simple task of designing a ship with proper shielding which again goes back to propulsion Ample shielding is going to be a lot mass and in case of solar activity, they will need hardened shelters Thats a lot mass for engines
    1
  729.  @jamesmaddison4546  You can't send food or water in advance The modules would subjected to months of radiation both in space and on ground Sending them in advanced again means they have to amply shielded till the crew which again means more mass. Even with equipment , still the same problem. Hence you have to wait to till after the crew launches, to start sending additional supplies as once they reach Mars, the crew can break them done and store them safely in build up modules Travel is only feasible when we dont have to rely on optimal planet positions That means engines not reliant on chemicals
    1
  730.  @jamesmaddison4546  Again incorrect. In order to shield modules for months on end for travel through space and on the ground requires a massive amount of shielding and will greatly increase the mass again not feasible The factor you are missing is the Mars atmosphere Why did the NASA have to use the Sky Crane technique just to land 2000lbs rover Why can we land 20,000lbs module on earth with 3 parachutes but can't do the same on Mars Mars atmosphere is considerably thinner than Earth. Trying to land 20,000lbs on module on Mars would be exceedingly challenging No they will not have ample shielding unless propulsion issues make a stellar leap
    1
  731. @ that is the question
    1
  732. F-55 interesting idea but no
    1
  733.  @Chuck_Hooks  Actually yes The whole Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) nixed all short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) , medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) and Intermediate-range ballistic missile weapon systems and development both conventional and nuclear in 1988. There hasnt been a demand for that tech for 30 plus years in the US Since that treaty has been nixed There is now a renewed demand for that tech which is now basically a lost skill so its taking a while The USAF needs either the ARRW or HACM for its assets. The US is sharing the LRHW with Army for ships and subs but still working on their own program carrier aircraft The USMC only entry is the OpFires Ideally if the ARRW and LRHW can full operational and production, the sense of urgency will drop for the rest but something has to considered as credible weapon
    1
  734. Well ,NOTAMS are officially out so there has been or will be test
    1
  735. You mean how the Su-27 pilot didn't know how bring the drone down without hitting it
    1
  736. Tanks are no longer needed Lighter more flexible options are needed
    1
  737.  @zaco-km3su  That would be incorrect The design just needs a few subtle tweaks Change the cannon to 30mm. Bring over the Arrowhead TADS/PVS and lastly a new mast mounting sight with AESA/IR/EOTS combined The GE T901 already produces more power than the T-700 The last hurdle would be redesigning the stores management They should look at enclosed weapons pod (EWP) which produces less drag
    1
  738. Air fields and 3000-5000 asphalt runways have long been easy targets with the advent of long range cruise missiles. Combat engineers need hours to repair or set runways Using existing roads have the advantage of making any road into a potential air field. So instead of a few targets, its now hundreds of potential areas that can be used The USAF should give the A400M an actual look for potential austere operations. Double the payload of a C-130J with 1 plane
    1
  739.  @Brandonthesnifferofall  If you read up about the Marines during 2003 invasion, they flew directly from Crete to Erbil and Mosul, Iraq , 1100 miles via air insertion. The CH-53 refueled in air while the CH-46E crossed through Turkey. Turkey closed their airspace at the last minute That incident is one biggest reasons why the USAF and USMC doubled down on the V-22. Aircraft able to refuel in the air draws very little attention and refueling can done away from prying eyes. As the CH-46E could not refuel in the air, it had make a lot of stops in Turkey which drew a lot of attention and ire The MV-22 higher speed allows to get from a to b much faster. Modern warfare is about speed and payload Being able to travel faster but still carry a substantial payload in the process Function doesn't win wars Example, the Israel's made TOMCAR able to be carried internally by CH-47, CH-53 or MV-22 or sling load the TOMCAR carry 8 Spike NLOS missiles which can shred most any target on the ground up 16 miles away The US has JTLV with Spike NLOS Being able to carry JTLV with NLOS is far easier than 70 ton tank
    1
  740.  @The_ZeroLine  The real question is how much of the V-22 will carry over XV-15 lacked a lot of the MV-22 So it will be interesting to see what carries over to the production model
    1
  741. That would be incorrect the F-14 could engage 6 targets simultaneously from 100+ The problem ironically was the AWG-9, the AWG-9 RF emissions would light up targets RWR like christmas trees due to its extreme power The radar's powerful scanning allowed to 6 targets simultaneously from 100+ but at the time, RWR was still relatively new tech Once RWR became common place, the AWG-9 became very useless against aircraft which lead to its retire The USN changed tactics from stopping the missile to stopping the aircraft but the AW-9 massive RF making that attacking aircraft would know they were being targeted and retreat and come another time The F-14's problem was the USN never was truly invested in it The F-15 entered service in 76 and by 78, the much improved F-15C was in testing The F-14 entered service in 74 and wasnt truly improved till 1987 which was the coffin for it
    1
  742. That what happens you have plan
    1
  743. Russian forces keep living a state of denial
    1
  744. The simple answer is that F-22 is long overdue for replacement. if the F-22 was built to full specs, it wouldnt be a problem but even with upgrades the F-22 still lags behind. The F-35 is no match for the J-20 or Su-57 in the merge so its kinda no choice but to build or restart F-22 production to be prospective F-22C with all the bells and whistles
    1
  745.  @xylicable  The F-22 original full spec with some tweaking would be valuable asset
    1
  746.  @AgatBluvsky-ow9gp  Your facts of just plain disinformation For starters Questions regarding the military are handled by U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, commonly known as the House Armed Services Committee or HASC,which Cruz is not a part of Secondly that falls to the United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces or United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness Again Cruz is not part of either So Cruz who holds no position on any of the committees regarding military affairs is confused why the SecDef basically ignored all his questions here's a hint Cruz you are not part of any committee that SecDef answers to
    1
  747. Your facts of just plain disinformation For starters Questions regarding the military are handled by U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, commonly known as the House Armed Services Committee or HASC,which Cruz is not a part of Secondly that falls to the United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces or United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness Again Cruz is not part of either So Cruz who holds no position on any of the committees regarding military affairs is confused why the SecDef basically ignored all his questions here's a hint Cruz you are not part of any committee that SecDef answers to
    1
  748. Cruz isnt on any committee that SecDef answers to
    1
  749. @AgatBluvsky-ow9gp Your facts of just plain disinformation For starters Questions regarding the military are handled by U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, commonly known as the House Armed Services Committee or HASC,which Cruz is not a part of Secondly that falls to the United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces or United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness Again Cruz is not part of either So Cruz who holds no position on any of the committees regarding military affairs is confused why the SecDef basically ignored all his questions here's a hint Cruz you are not part of any committee that SecDef answers to
    1
  750. The ARRW has had a string a of successful test behind With HACM still untested and woes with LHRW its makes no sense to canx the ARRW
    1
  751. Yeah no,
    1
  752.  @richroylance4630  The NV did not prove anything what was proven was massive incompetence by the US which can be summed up in one phrase "Micromanagement from President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara"
    1
  753.  @trajhenkhet02  That only works for so long
    1
  754.  @trajhenkhet02  The F-35 is different story It was built with the goal to meet the needs of various countries The NGAD is being built for the USAF not export The two EU programs Future Combat Air System (FCAS) and Tempest are being built with export in mind There is no need for the NGAD to hit the export market as it would undermine the F-35
    1
  755. The F-16 was never considered as engine technology at the time was still unreliable and the USN was trying to get away from single engine aircraft
    1
  756. Without any more detail , its hard to say that Granted , the JATM is designed to address the AIM-120s shortcomings and thats literally all we know at this point
    1
  757. Unless they are modding an SSBN to carry them its kinda of moot
    1
  758. The Army proving yet again why they are the laughing stock Over reliance on drones is going bite them in the ass hard
    1
  759. They seriously need to reconsider the AGM-183 program
    1
  760. There is reason for that its called US surveillance
    1
  761.  @williamduffy1227  And thats not counting the developments with UCAVs a hand for a stealth UCAVs again, cripple key defenses and other assets while missile and manned aircraft do the rest Even against Russia and China, their is no need to go fighter unless its for counter air operating where you wanna to draw them out
    1
  762. The US has done many times
    1
  763. @@JimCarner Ukraine doesnt need permission for Novorossiysk as its naval target. completely different set of rules and its destruction would have clear strategic impact TLAM are no go simply because there are very little ground launchers. Both the Army and Marines only have a hand ful of TLAM launches Secondly, its not the weapon they need All you need to target for the Kerch bridge is 1 section and sever it Ukraine can that with Su-24 and Storm Shadow but they have to few aircraft to commit to an all out attack The KEPD-350 is irrelevant The only weapon that matters to Ukraine is the ATACMS as the combined 60 HIMARS and M270 can use it which would give Ukraine massive striking power
    1
  764. I wouldnt be so sure Trump is advancing the programs in response to China's push but the reason why the US doesnt have China or Russia problems is that the US doesnt rush things Yes much of the tech is already developed but this is still Trump trying to rush things The math says that Boeing will likely get both as cost saving measure Like the F-35A and F-35C I am betting it will be F-47A and F-47C but thats if Boeing was smart enough to consider a common design for both the USAF and USN
    1
  765. The F-35 hasnt fully replaced the legacy aircraft, so the GAO findings are moot
    1
  766. The advent of long range cruise missiles makes that narrative so much more deadly. F-22s engages the enemy fighters while EA-18G and F-16CJ knock their defenses and F-15Es knocks out bunkers and comms hub allow the bombers orbiting to launch their missiles with ease and deliver the KO blows to the enemy forces The USAF should really reconsider their position with the AGM-183
    1
  767. The problem there is that is that congress won't get out of the way The USAF is trying to make room for new assets however congress wont let them retire what they need so they can make room for the NGAD
    1
  768.  @tinto278  Draken has nothing to do with China
    1
  769. That and others is why the West is striking quickly
    1
  770. @ It is The F/A designation is just a place holder at this point since one aircraft fills so many roles
    1
  771. The Meteor has zero combat experience
    1
  772.  @TheLavadiver  They dont need a year Simple launch and leave tactics The F-16 can Harpoon's from over 100 miles away Without the Moskava, the remaining ships cant stop them from attacking Same with ground target launch and leave
    1
  773. Poor tactics sums it up
    1
  774. Its combination of various factors The actual is metric man hours per flight hour. For every flight hour, you need so many hours of maintenance After every flight, aircraft have to checked and numbers dialed in Parts have to be replaced after so many hours Others have to be inspected to see if they have to be replaced At certain points, certain inspections have to done on the airframe and lastly when the aircraft reaches a certain amount of flight hours, the manufacturer has to perform work so it operate for x amount of flights till next major inspection As far readiness, its depends on the mission The radar can be down but the aircraft can still fly for missions dont that require it You dont need the gun or targeting pod operational when you are doing monthly qualifications Navy pilots practice touch and gos on land to simulate carrier landings It would be nice if you could keep all aircraft 100 percent but thats not realistic for several reasons which is why goals reasonable set 80-90 ish , There was famous report by DW that only 4 of Germany's 128 Eurofighters were fully operational but thats not account for various factors
    1
  775.  @kathrynck  The key difference is that US due to the its size needs method to maintain an effective but cost effective fighting force
    1
  776. They need to seriously back off the drone kool aid. FPV drones are only working because both sides are ill equipped to deal with them effectively GD Epirus' Leonidas high-power microwave (HPM) array mounted on the right vehicle and with ample power can easy deal with drones as well other Directed energy weapons Right now, they are trying to scale them down to fight on vehicles like the Stryker, LAV-25s , ACV and so forth but thats not the answer They need DEW and HPM mounted on large vehicles like the LVSR and HEMTT simply because their size allows for larger generators as well adequate cooling measures The US Army send 4 DE M-SHORAD Strykers to the middle east and reviews from the soliders highlighted all theses weakness Drones have uses no doubt but Swarm not so much
    1
  777. More than likely something that can mirror the B-52 so they can finally retire it I would bet on something adopted from the C-5 and C-17 replacement program
    1
  778. However Russia looks it , its still bad news for them Russia's saving grace was that Ukraine air force was basically useless even with upgrades with western tech The F-16's nightmare for Russia is that it can fully use the AGM-88s to max capability as well as other western weapons
    1
  779.  @staggabob  The F-15 record speaks for itself
    1
  780.  @brandony8691  Apart from the fact that F-15EX is vastly superior to any F-16 at all
    1
  781.  @chrispalmer3096  Incorrect The F-16 was backed doored into the USAF by Fighter Mafia who erroneously claimed that F-15s large size made it inadequate for air to air combat. The F-15 and F-16 were both designed solely for air combat however the F-16 was through various blocks was adapted for multi-role while the separate F-15E was designed for multi-role. While the F-16 was dependable workhorse , the F-15E was highly valuable asset. The F-15E has nearly 3 times the range of the F-16 Even the F-16 Block 70 barely approaches the F-15E range but most importantly, the F-15E has a massive payload options compared to F-16
    1
  782.  @chrisgage894  Not really High off boresight weapons have made that very problematic
    1
  783.  @265justy  The F-15's record says otherwise How many actual kills does the F-16 Secondly F-16s in Turkish hands have been a few times in ACM
    1
  784.  @265justy  The F-16 has 1 of each while the F-15 six of each
    1
  785.  @265justy  And your point is ?
    1
  786.  @greattribulation1388  The F-15 has twice the amount of combat as the F-16
    1
  787.  @greattribulation1388  Laughs in F-15E and F-15EX
    1
  788.  @dallasyap3064  A just a few is the issue 2 B-2s is basically 10 F-15Es why commit so many planes when you dont have to
    1
  789.  @rtyrsson  As long as the F-35s and F-22s do their job it wont happen
    1
  790. LOL He invaded a country for BS reason trying to show case Russian might and instead got massive embarrassed and now is looking scrap goats The Kinzhal is not the only weapon that failed miserably. The KA-52 was hyped as well and is getting shredded whole sale as is the Su-34 and T-90 Now its scrape goat time
    1
  791. ​ @colbunkmust  The critical fact that is that ATACMS was made to comply with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) Both sides coined the term tactical ballistic missile to differentiate their arsenals as both were building various nuclear weapons Literally every weapon in the TBM had a nuclear warhead. The ATACMS goal was create a weapon without chemical or biological or nuclear payload but conventional that would simpler and easier to use on the battlefield The ATACMS exists out the normal ballistic missile S, M, IR and IC categories However its replacement , the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) is on track to become short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) with current increment improvements to range of 600 miles . There is possibility of further improvements that would push its range into medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) category
    1
  792.  @colbunkmust  No the point is that ATACMS exists in its own unique category
    1
  793. Of course China is calling out Russian weapons. Nearly 2 years in Ukraine and they have down nothing but fail miserably
    1
  794. Thats literally no shit sherlock it is real Like everything out of Iran overblown or fake
    1
  795. Yeah someone dropped the ball badly there
    1
  796. The USN cant afford to wait
    1
  797. The F-14 and AIM-54 was never validated by the USN hence why it was scrapped
    1
  798.  @johnsilver9338  According to specs The SM-6 mass is 3300lbs The MK-72 booster weighs 1540lbs which means the SM-6 weights between 1700-1800lbs
    1
  799.  @okisoba  No, the F-14 and AIM-54 purpose was downing enemy aircraft and missiles at long range. It never achieved that with the USN. The F-14 achieved kills with the AIM-9 but never with the AIM-7 or AIM-54. The F-15 by contract used AIM-9s, AIM-7s as well the M61 in various engagements repeatedly By the time the F-15 entered service, the USAF was already working on the F-15C The USN problem which ultimately doomed the F-14 was clutter Carrier decks were littered with F-4 still as well A-6, A-7, RA-4/5/8, EA-3B. EA-6 and KA-6 Simply put There USN had so much clutter on the deck, they were never able to focus clearly on one platform The F-15 got a massive boost during the Gulf in a the form of a lot kills while the F-14 sat on the side lines then of course there was the famous incident where 2 F-18s loaded with bombs was guided by E-2 downed 2 MIGs , dropped on target and returned to ship validating the F-18s design Had the F-14 performance been the same or better during Gulf it would have had the support it needed for more upgrades. That and yes the end of the Cold war was it for the F-14
    1
  800.  @okisoba  Being actually used combat very different. Strategic assets are meant for strategic missions not conventional , different scale The F-14 performance in Iran-Iraq was due the fact that Iraqi aircraft lacked MAWS and RWRs. Lack of both those allowed the F-14/AWG-9/AIM-54 combo to be used with deadly effects. When Iraq got Mirages with MAWS and RWRs , the combo effectiveness dropped off substantially but the damage had been done The F-14 got no kills with the AIM-7, the only incident with the AIM-7 was a soft kill where the aircraft hit but still made back to base The AIM-120 wasnt operational during the Gulf war. All kills were AIM-7s or AIM-9s, BVR wasnt restrictive, the F-14 didnt have proper IFF equipment for BVR hence why it was sidelined nor the AIM-54 fail because they were not armed. Prior to take off, the safety pin is removed and weapon fuze switched to armed. The Fire Control system would tell the pilot if the weapons were not armed while still on the ground. Capability is everything
    1
  801.  @okisoba  The shot down was AIM-9Ls not AIM-7s. a kill is kill. The Israeli's had F-4s but against MIGs, the F-4 didnt far well whereas the F-15 performed exceptional well and why its still Israel's favorite. The 1999 was post Gulf War not during and those failures were likely AIM-120A or B models As for the AIM-54 not ignite, that was common for missiles at that time Unlike the AIM-9, AIM-7 and AIM-120 The AIM-54 was not widely produced nor wide used
    1
  802.  @okisoba  The simple fact is that AIM-7 despite upgrades as well notoriously unreliable. The limited run and use of the AIM-54 again what doomed it The AIM-174 differs because the USN needs it badly The F-18 with 2 AIM--174s can destroy threats before they become a threat to the fleet While the CEC is E-2D as sensor and F-18/F-35s as shooters I would wager that USN is looking at upgrades to their radars so they can engage hypersonic threats without the need for E-2Ds
    1
  803.  @okisoba  Only instance with F-14 and AIM-7 kill is questionable due unreliable of the AIM-7s at the time
    1
  804.  @okisoba  Incorrect While the AIM-7M entered service in 1982 , there was no guarantee that was the missile used by the USN as its common to exhaust older stocks and use newer missile as needed basics. So yes during the Gulf war and later, it was likely AIM-7Ms but prior to , it was likely AIM-7F on do According to estimates, The AIM-7E/F production was 15,000 to 25,000 missiles while the AIM-7M was just 5000 The AIM-7M lower production was likely due to the newer AIM-120 so yes during combat , the AIM-7M was choice but for normal peace time, it was AIM-7E/F
    1
  805. Thats freaking awesome
    1
  806.  @christopherchartier3017  Actually do because there are some cases where that extra bang comes in handy
    1
  807.  @christopherchartier3017 ometimes you need that extra bang
    1
  808.  @BoraHorzaGobuchul  No, Ukraine has shown destroying the jammer is far more effective than using counter measures Mind you, the US would be actively destroying those jammers
    1
  809. Lets see The West supported the rebels while Russia supported Assad Now Assad is Russia and the rebels are in control you more like a sore loser
    1
  810.  @Synthmilk  Externally not internally The F-35B why the US military should revisit the JSOW-ER It would give the F-35B a much needed offensive punch against land and sea targets Joint Strike Missile (JSM) weights 900lbs with 260lbs warhead and 300 mile range The JSOW-ER weights 1100lbs with BROACH warhead designed for hard-target penetration with 300 mile range BROACH is better against ships and bunkers
    1
  811.  @ThirdLawPair  The problem with 50 miles is the potential for counter attack
    1
  812.  @asterik917  The F-35A/C can carry 2000lbs bombs internally The F-35B can only carry 1000lbs
    1
  813.  @totalnerd5674  That doesnt track as most F-16 block have been heavily upgraded
    1
  814.  @LentPanic7  Its can to a degree but the JAS-39 and F-18 are far better austere operations
    1
  815.  @tukkajumala  True but remember, it easier to ID an AWACS by their emissions The Saab radar range 450km but MIG-31 and Su-35 radar range is 400 km and the R-37 range is also 400 km As the Saab is pedestrian in speed, they only need to close to 375 km to be able to successfully engage the Saab The best thing Ukraine can do with it is use as decoy to draw Russian aircraft into traps Having the F-16s stay low and off line as well as SAM battery on the ground would a lethal combo and benefically if they nailed a Su-35 or MiG-31 or worst they a bag Su-57
    1
  816.  @MacDaddy8200  They need to be Ukrainian space to be effective Ironically ,the retired USAF E-8 Joint STARS is what Ukraine needs because it would give them real time info on Russian movements The thing about this AWACS situation is that it strongly hints that Ukraine may be getting either baseline AIM-120Ds or Meteor missiles My money is on both for the simple that AIM-120D or Meteor bagging Su-34 or Su-35 would great for publicity, bagging a Kinzhal would be massive ego boost but if they bag Su-57, it would be total anarchy for Russia and like the Kinzhal scientist , I would the Sukhoi project managers to avoid windows
    1
  817.  @inscrutianaII  The ASC 890 just has to orbit
    1
  818.  @inscrutianaII  No they dont If they could, we would see a different dynamic
    1
  819.  @MacDaddy8200  Russia limiting their use however F-16s as well an AWACS would be something worth the risk
    1
  820.  @greattribulation1388  If pilot pays the card right
    1
  821.  @TooFingers  yet we are 3 years and counting yet Su-24 and Storm Shadows have repeatedly struck Russian targets
    1
  822.  @TooFingers  Russia will lose, thats pretty much all there is to it Yeah, those so called videos are DCS mods not reality First a CVN is not going to simply maintain its course if missiles are incoming but most important is are the carrier last line of defenses which is SRBOC, Nulka and blip enhancer Once missiles reached a certain point, the ships would immediately turned their AN/SLQ-32 which jams radar well uses block visual and IR As for the lost of the MQ-9, its not rocket science to figure out whats happening The MQ-9s are flying the civilian airspace in enroute to Yemen which requires them to have their ADS-B transponder turned on till they reach Yemen at which point they turned off As the MQ-9 travels at 362 mph which is not that fast, its gives Houthis enough warning to estimate its path They simply flip their radars on and off long enough to fix the MQ-9 but not enough for the US to fix their position Once they have an estimated path, they simply lay in way till in gets in range. The videos show they are using IR guided weapons All the Houthis are doing is putting money in General Atomics pocket The Houtihis are literally justifying the need for the MQ-20 as well MQ-X programs to develop a stealthier MQ
    1
  823. Russia will lose, thats pretty much all there is to it Yeah, those so called videos are DCS mods not reality First a CVN is not going to simply maintain its course if missiles are incoming but most important is are the carrier last line of defenses which is SRBOC, Nulka and blip enhancer Once missiles reached a certain point, the ships would immediately turned their AN/SLQ-32 which jams radar well uses block visual and IR As for the lost of the MQ-9, its not rocket science to figure out whats happening The MQ-9s are flying the civilian airspace in enroute to Yemen which requires them to have their ADS-B transponder turned on till they reach Yemen at which point they turned off As the MQ-9 travels at 362 mph which is not that fast, its gives Houthis enough warning to estimate its path They simply flip their radars on and off long enough to fix the MQ-9 but not enough for the US to fix their position Once they have an estimated path, they simply lay in way till in gets in range. The videos show they are using IR guided weapons All the Houthis are doing is putting money in General Atomics pocket The Houtihis are literally justifying the need for the MQ-20 as well MQ-X programs to develop a stealthier MQ
    1
  824. Russia will lose, thats pretty much all there is to it Yeah, those so called videos are DCS mods not reality First a CVN is not going to simply maintain its course if missiles are incoming but most important is are the carrier last line of defenses which is SRBOC, Nulka and blip enhancer Once missiles reached a certain point, the ships would immediately turned their AN/SLQ-32 which jams radar well uses block visual and IR As for the lost of the MQ-9, its not rocket science to figure out whats happening The MQ-9s are flying the civilian airspace in enroute to Yemen which requires them to have their ADS-B transponder turned on till they reach Yemen at which point they turned off As the MQ-9 travels at 362 mph which is not that fast, its gives Houthis enough warning to estimate its path They simply flip their radars on and off long enough to fix the MQ-9 but not enough for the US to fix their position Once they have an estimated path, they simply lay in way till in gets in range. The videos show they are using IR guided weapons All the Houthis are doing is putting money in General Atomics pocket The Houtihis are literally justifying the need for the MQ-20 as well MQ-X programs to develop a stealthier MQ  @TooFingers 
    1
  825. Russia will lose, thats pretty much all there is to it Yeah, those so called videos are DCS mods not reality First a CVN is not going to simply maintain its course if missiles are incoming but most important is are the carrier last line of defenses which is SRBOC, Nulka and blip enhancer Once missiles reached a certain point, the ships would immediately turned their AN/SLQ-32 which jams radar well uses block visual and IR As for the lost of the MQ-9, its not rocket science to figure out whats happening The MQ-9s are flying the civilian airspace in enroute to Yemen which requires them to have their ADS-B transponder turned on till they reach Yemen at which point they turned off As the MQ-9 travels at 362 mph which is not that fast, its gives Houthis enough warning to estimate its path They simply flip their radars on and off long enough to fix the MQ-9 but not enough for the US to fix their position Once they have an estimated path, they simply lay in way till in gets in range. The videos show they are using IR guided weapons All the Houthis are doing is putting money in General Atomics pocket The Houtihis are literally justifying the need for the MQ-20 as well MQ-X programs to develop a stealthier MQ
    1
  826. Russia will lose, thats pretty much all there is to it Yeah, those so called videos are DCS mods not reality First a CVN is not going to simply maintain its course if missiles are incoming but most important is are the carrier last line of defenses which is SRBOC, Nulka and blip enhancer Once missiles reached a certain point, the ships would immediately turned their AN/SLQ-32 which jams radar well uses block visual and IR As for the lost of the MQ-9, its not rocket science to figure out whats happening The MQ-9s are flying the civilian airspace in enroute to Yemen which requires them to have their ADS-B transponder turned on till they reach Yemen at which point they turned off As the MQ-9 travels at 362 mph which is not that fast, its gives Houthis enough warning to estimate its path They simply flip their radars on and off long enough to fix the MQ-9 but not enough for the US to fix their position Once they have an estimated path, they simply lay in way till in gets in range. The videos show they are using IR guided weapons All the Houthis are doing is putting money in General Atomics pocket The Houtihis are literally justifying the need for the MQ-20 as well MQ-X programs to develop a stealthier MQ
    1
  827.  @TooFingers  No its pointless
    1
  828.  @TooFingers  Observe The Houthi downing the MQ-9 is fact that MQ-9 has to fly through civilian aircraft with their ADS-B transponder on till they reach Yemen. What Houthis are doing is flipping their radars on and off just long enough to fix the MQ-9 position
    1
  829.  @TooFingers  I have to write multiple post instead one just get info across USN ships have several hard kill as soft kill defenses against missile attack. SRBOC, Nulka and SLQ-32 which are designed to counter far more advanced missiles than the Houthi has and if they did hit a CVN, if you think Israel is out of control, You dont wanna imagine the US response. its ends with USAF strategic bombers doing what they do best
    1
  830.  @TooFingers  Lastly, all the Houthis are doing is putting money in General Atomics pockets for the MQ-20s and MQ-Xs programs. They have effectively justified the need for stealthier and more survivable drones as the MQ-9 is neither
    1
  831.  @TooFingers  Incorrect. The head of the US Missile defense Agency already stated that the SM-3-and SM-6 is capable engagement of hypersonic weapons SM-3s from the USS Carney intercepted 6 Iranian missiles in April Previous the Carney and Laboon used SM-6s to intercept Iranian missiles In January
    1
  832.  @TooFingers  The Red Sea has give the USN invaluable data. I have vegas money that USN next step is to use Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) EA-18G with NGJs pods, F-35Cs as well get destroyers equipped with the newer SPY-6 radar on site Basically test every countermeasure and weapon they have on the shelf simply because they can
    1
  833.  @dougcoombes8497  CAS become moot if F-16s use strike Russian bases and supply lines with long range cruise missiles No need to try go blow for blow
    1
  834.  @nietkees6906  Which is why Ukraine needs to use ground forces to neutralize them
    1
  835.  @dougcoombes8497  and how many can they actually use in Ukraine
    1
  836.  @dougcoombes8497  Once again how many can they can actually use in Ukraine the answer not that many SEAD is only needed when you are dealing with contested airspace You dont need SEAD if you can attack without getting range of the enemy defenses or other options to attack
    1
  837.  @dougcoombes8497  Once again Russian can't thousands or hundreds only a hand full at most and its shows
    1
  838.  @TinyHouseHomestead  Sorry clown thats straight from GAO cry even harder
    1
  839.  @TinyHouseHomestead  Right says that clown that can only ramble clueless
    1
  840.  @TinyHouseHomestead  cry harder troll
    1
  841.  @zidniafifamani2378  Actually , that is the true cost of these Su-57s The Su-57M will be 100-150 mil but these are early model Su-57s which are much cheaper for several reasons First, they dont have the Izdeliye 30 engine, they are flying with AL-41F1 (117) which is a modded AL-31. The Izdeliye 30 AL-51 is completely new engine for the Su-57 Second , they use Su-35 Baguet avionics as the SU-57 IMA BK was still being written. Lastly, the N036 Byelka radar deliveries were also late among several other issues Thats why Su-57s order was curbed from 200-300 to just 76s. These early models will be cheap trainers as they lack so much Once the Su-57M passes its test and is accepted , you will see a massive order for them
    1
  842.  @shadmansudipto7287  How about The F-35 helmet has no analog. The modern aircraft have head-up display (HUD) which is mounted normally in front the pilot. The F-35 helmet is the HUD More the point, F-35 pilots dont have to fly with night-vision goggles (NVG) at night as that is also built into the helmet. Lastly, the F-35 is designed to allow the pilot view images from both the AN/AAQ-37/40
    1
  843.  @valenrn8657  The F-35B was always going to be different from rest but the fact that F-35A and F-35C are so far apart is why cost are through the roof ..
    1
  844.  @valenrn8657  When the F-4 was used by the USN and USAF, the only differences were the reniforced landing gear , folding wings and few changes with avionics The F-35 A/C should have been the same way but they are way too far apart Honestly the A-12 design was too advanced for its time. They should gone with a more simplier design Ironically the X-47B design would better They were trying to put a B-2 on a CVN way too advanced for its time The F-117A was a black project so you really can't count it The X-32 was just one of helluva ugly duckling
    1
  845.  @roijoi6963  The Rafale is no exception, It was built from the start to be carrier capable. The French wanted a navalized verison of the Eurofighter however it was rejected That rejection is what led to Rafale. Secondly the first operational model of the Rafale was the carrier capable model in 2000 The French Air Force didnt receive their Rafales till 2006
    1
  846. US could add a kill switch yes but doing so would tank their ability to see weapons permanently
    1
  847.  @404-u5f  BAE does the work but its still done in the US
    1
  848.  @jameshall1300  I just remember that USAF has tested the F-16 with Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). It was able to use its targeting pod and cue 70mm APKWS to target missile/ The USMC also uses (APKWS) with its F-18s I believe the right combo would a missile like the Zuni rocket equipped with the AGM-114-L seeker carried in 4-5 pack launcher F-4 could carry 16 Zuni in 4 launchers
    1
  849. The Fighter Mafia used connections to get the F-16 into service but ultimately tasted failure when their so call conclusions were proven false
    1
  850. What we know is that they are all bark and no bark The J-20S has been known for a long time The J-36 that is flying is like Chinese replacement for the JH-7s, The JH-XX has been also known for a long time The irony here is that the F-22 was cancelled because of lack of threat from the Russian and Chinese programs however that changed ,the F-22 production had already ended The NGAD has been having similar issues however the existence of this plane now gives the USAF ammo to justify spending on NGAD The USN also benefits for its FA/XX program too
    1
  851. The A-10 is not the plane for this job Ukraine needs F-16s , its only plane for this job The A-10 excels at air to ground but Ukraine needs more than that . more to point, they need flexibility The F-16 can carry AIM-9s and AIM-120s for counter air operations. The US can provide older model AIM-9M and AIM-120C-5 so even if the missiles ended up in Russian hands both are late 90s but still very effective It also can carry the AGM-84 Harpoon which opens to the door for Ukraine to knock out the Black Sea fleet completely as well AGM-65s and GBU-10/12/24s for general purpose The AGM-84 also has land attack capability which opens to the door for Ukraine strike Russia at targets previously out of reach Some would agree a combination of the F-16 and A-10 but for quick, easy and simply, just one plane and the F-16 is the plane
    1
  852. The J-36 is just one prototype and far from a problem
    1
  853.  @gideongeny4441  Which is frankly dumb because they made that argument with the F-22 costing too much and we ended up in this situation for them to try and use that excuse again is crazy
    1
  854. This makes zero sense If it was AH-64E , that makes sense but Taiwan doesnt operate any advanced models of the CH-47
    1
  855.  @TheStormpilgrim  Hence why the PLAN statement is pure propaganda
    1
  856. Stealth works fine by itself but when its supported by additional elements it works even better
    1
  857.  @ExarchGaming  The B-2 and F-22 are much older but thanks to lessons learned in Serbia Russian and Chinese advancements would face stiff SEAD attacks
    1
  858.  @ExarchGaming  it can be overcome but it also can be enhanced by use of tactics
    1
  859.  @ignacio3890  Once what again what to hell are you talking about ?
    1
  860.  @nedkelly9688  Lay off the drugs buddy
    1
  861.  @LondonSteveLee  So much misinformation in your statement, its hilarious The F-35 is not stealthier than F-22. Secondly the RAF pilots tracking the F-35 is literally moot. In potential conflict with Russia or China, the UK Typhoon's need a way to train their radar to track Su-57 and J-20s at look rang. So by training with their F-35s without the lens, gives them the training they need Third and most importantly, the other key factors are electronic warfare which can degrade radar capabilties. While the Su-57 and J-20 EW capabilities are not know The F-35s ASQ-239 which is carry over from the F-22 can detect emissions so the Typhoon's would already give itself away Lastly, the Meteor is all paper. The AIM-120 30 plus years old but has actual combat performance and kills, whereas the meteor is literally all hype
    1
  862.  @Oceangai  Again radars don't simply operate freely , They are normally targeted for destruction Their ability to operate depends on various factors. Their range and the range of the weapons used against it
    1
  863.  @balls9052  600 people say otherwise
    1
  864. A live ARRW in Guam near the US military largest test range ? Duh,they are going to fire that thing off
    1
  865. Boeing, Lockheed and Northrup all can make fighters if given a chance Lockheed and Northrup already have block buster contracts from the US military, Boeing is the only one without one so there is a lot riding on this contract for them to prove they can still compete
    1
  866. Simple The reason why the Brimstone was passed over was production In 2012, the UK received its 500th Brimstone In 2012 ,the US placed order for 24,000 Hellfires The Hellfire is used by USN, USMC ,USAF and US Army as well the CIA alone There was doubt that Brimstone could meet the US needs as the US orders hellfire generally by the thousands The MDBA to date has never delivered on that scale The best weapon is the Spike NLOS
    1
  867. Building a Quin jet is very possible with today technology but as far making it quiet Not likely
    1
  868. There is little doubt that there are underground facilities there as well as as the whole place shielded with layers of insulation and other materials to prevent satellites from advanced sensors from gleaming information so while Area 51 draws everyone attention ,actually testing is done elswhere
    1
  869.  @AvanaVana  Having a base in Djibouti doesnt say much same with the Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Kiribati. Even Latin America is meh The US literally has bases on China's doorstep in Pacific , Indian and Arabian Sea
    1
  870.  @fredricksmith-something.2125  The think you are using needs to lay off the propaganda Making inroads in Africa pointless. Technologically, economically and strategically Africa is none of the above As far as China could continuously bomb ALL US and EU bases in and around the south China sea for 30 days. That's NON STOP" Thats the most retarded piece of propaganda I have ever heard, Before I make fun of the ridiculousness of that statement whats stopping USN subs from heading to China and launching attacks from stand off range to point blank range . nothing whats stopping B-52 from heading to China and doing the same, whats stopping USN ships at sea from being redirected to China Again nothing As for your asinine statement here is reality the distance between China and US is 7000 miles China's fastest missile , the DF-41 maxes out at Mach 25 and still needs 20 mins just to reach the West coast , 29 mins to reach East coast The USAF minimum interval takeoff (MITO) can get all its aircraft airborne with 15 min Next the US has both land and sea based defenses that can easily thin out any Chinese attack including hypersonic weapons The EU has its own defense absurd doesnt even cover that statement
    1
  871.  @haikaloronsentnel138  And you're point is what exactly
    1
  872.  @cassiespencer6134  China has never operated a complex bomber There only bomber is the H-6K which is not much Russia and US have decades of bomber operation
    1
  873.  @cassiespencer6134  Not claim facts
    1
  874.  @Foquro  Surprise suprise The B-21 already flew
    1
  875. The Patriot isnt mobile like the other systems but it will get the job done
    1
  876. Lets see China basically took the quick and easy path by using ICBMs as boosters for its hypersonic Pro its quick and easy Con, there is no hiding it when you launch so they can never surprise anyone Even the planned DF-21 carried by Xian 6 is just one missile Secondly the size of their launcher limits their mobility Russia used massive missiles. Again quick and easy but the shear mass of the missile limits its use The MIG-31K carries 1 but required the removal of equipment to do so. The Tu-22M3M can only carry 4 Russia has a handful of MIG-31Ks and Tu-22M3M The Zircon requires Russia's VLS system which very very very few ships and subs The ARRW program will allow the B-52 to carry 20 missile and B-1B up to 31 Compared to Russian and Chinese systems, thats a vastly superior capability The ARRW is having problems but the US is not taking the quick and easy path They are taking their time with development. There is no need to rush as what they are developing will be vastly superior to both Chinese and Russian systems The icing on the cake would be a weapon that F-35Bs could take off from LHA/D and F-35C/F-18s from CVNs
    1
  877. Skynet approves
    1
  878. America's failures in Vietnam is ironically why the US air power is the technological juggernaut that it is today. Equally as ironic ,is Russia's air power failure in Ukraine The US learned from failures while Russia didn't take heed and now is currently getting their asses handed to them all because they lack simple equipment JDAM and PAVEWAYs are universal to virtually all US strike assets while only certain Russian aircraft can use their KAB-series bomb Targeting pods again universal to virtually all US strike assets while only the Su-34 and MIG-35 has pod-ish system ,everything else relies on their OLS which has turned out to be virtually useless The Khibiny was hailed as this super system to protect Russian aircraft, yet 2 Su-35S, 11 Su-30Sm and 20 Su-34 have been shot down Add in 33 KA-52 and 11 Mi-28 and all of Russia's latest aircraft have taken losses in Ukraine , worst is that 90 percent of their latest aircraft are in double digit losses and even worst, is that Russian's failure to cut Ukraine off from the West has allowed Ukraine to advanced western air defense weapons Patriots, SAMPT, NASAMS, IRIS-T , all these systems are laying the foundation for Ukraine to get integrated air defence system (IADS) with western equipment Ukraine with functioning IADS would be Vietnam for Russia but 100 times worst
    1
  879. ​ @Reach41  There was a lot of like about the YF-23 it was just too advanced for its time
    1
  880.  @DrsharpRothstein  Incorrect range and stealth are need but moot The key is better capabilities for to neutralize the enemy capabilities Ukraine problem right now is their inability to neutralize Russian EW The US has provided various anti jam measures but nothing in the store works The only real measure is destroying the EW site The NGAD needs to be stealthy for sure but it needs advanced sensors ability to quickly locate the enemy in heavy EW environment but also the ability to destroy them as quickly Blinding the enemy so they can hear or see should be the focus
    1
  881. How about no The USAF didnt add the AIM-9X to the A-10, it can only use AIM-9M AIM-9M very low chances again an F-22
    1
  882.  @mattadams7922  The AIM-9M is vastly inferior to the AIM-9X and doesnt have the latest counter-countermeasures for countering flares as well low visibility targets Even targeting an F-22 from behind does not change that
    1
  883.  @Azframer  The odds of A-10 getting gun on in real combat against fast mover is less than 10 percent
    1
  884.  @Azframer  Literally irrelevant The F-22 can use the AIM-9X which has substantially greater maneuverability as its design for high off-boresight shots Block II AIM-9X has full 360 off-boresight capability allowing for shots even the target is behind the F-22 its why the AIM-9X II was designed with helmetless high off-boresight (HHOBS) so the launching aircraft can use the AIM-9X fully with out HMDS
    1
  885.  @mattadams7922  Wrong literally on every count The AIM-9X entered service in Nov 2003 with full production by May of 2004 Once the AIM-9X was accepted and being produced, AIM-9M production and upgrades stopped for the US military The last upgrade for the AIM-9M was 2002 and even then, that was a hand full of missiles its 2024 and the AIM-9M does not have the latest infrared Counter Counter Measures (IRCCM) features whereas the AIM-9X does Its over 20 and much has change The US provided Ukraine with AIM-9M because the tech is dated
    1
  886.  @Azframer  Which again is training not real world Real world intercept is gaining position , ID and strike before they know what hits them
    1
  887.  @theenclave6254  The USMC has access to more weapons than the JSDF
    1
  888.  @theenclave6254  USMC F-18s can carry four 2000lbs GBU-24s fitted with BLU-109 and 116 for advanced penetration as well ten 1000lbs GBUs JSDF F-2s carry considerably lighter payload as they role is more defensive than offensive One group keeps Godzilla distraction while 10 F-18s with 1000lbs GBU-16s, laze and drop all targeting on the same point clearing the way for a second group carry GBU-24 to strike the tactic is calling digging the garden. its standard practice for hard target penetration You strike with regular bombs to clear a path so it easier for bunker busters to penetrate The USMC TLAM units are not operations but the newer model of TLAMs are also developed with better hard target penetration
    1
  889. Yes because this is peace not wartime
    1