plawolfBecause the atomic-program is not the right reason… Absolutely incidentally Iran sits on a huge oil reserve. If I were Chinese premier, I would threaten with sanctions to all US investitions in China, in case they even touch a grain of sand in Iran. China is pretty much deep in energy crisis and muchly dependant on sources outside the US. Thanks goodness Euros still have Russians and Norwegians, so they might stay independent from the ‘greedy empire’.. This is slowly becoming a global battle..
the chinese are unlikely to respond in such ways, for one they’d be hurting the companies that are helping china the most. also, the chinese know that they dont have the military power to stand up to the americans if push came to shove, and the chinese leaders wont force themselves into any situation which might lead to the US threaterning military force and the chinese having to back down.
anyhow, if the chinese were to respond, a mere statement of the chinese central bank considering switching its currency reserves to the euro, or to stop buying american bonds would be far more effective. but i suspect they are keeping those for other situations.
apart from a veto and their strongest protests, i wouldnt expect much more from china. the EU is the only power left that can stand up to the americans.
the russians might sell arms to iran during the war, china might follow suit, but nothing more.
plawolfWhy to invade Iran, when two B-2s are enough to destroy all atomic-program related installation in a single night?!
If Iran responds to that militarily, it risk to loose all power generation facilities the next night for example.
If this is not enough, Iran can loose its AF the next night. The Navy and so on, there is nothing Iran has at hand to prevent this if the USA is willing to force its military might. :diablo:
1) the world would be in uproar over such an act of blantent unilateral impreialism. the EU/US rift will grow deeper, and you can pretty much forget about EU money and troops in afganistan and iraq. maybe even the breakup of NATO and a renewed emphysis on a combined EU military.
like it or not, america needs europe, alot. and america certainly have a great deal to loose (namely its position as the world’s unchallenged superpower) if they managed to unite the squabbling factions within the EU through a common interest – the fear of US power and the determination not to fall victim to it.
2) iran doesnt have to, nor is it dumb enough to declear war on america. just expect US occupation troops in iraq to sunddenly come under far more intensive and deadly attacks. suddenly influxes of US military casaulties from a war the american ppl dont care for tend to weaken the power of the person sitting in the white house.
PS, the iranian military is far better then that of iraq pre-DS, and unlike iraqis tried of war at the time of both gulf wars, the iranians are as determined as any. need i remind you what happened the last two times the US military went head to head with an inferiorly equiped but far more determined opponent. :dev2:
any american advantures in iran will teach the current generation of american soilders and leaders the lessons their predecessors learnt at great cost.
its almost a shame that the only was the american military seems to be able to get over its past defeats is to compeletly forget both the pain of the defeats and the lessons learnt from them, and use ignarence instead of experience to create and install courage and confidence within their soilders. 🙁
plawolfTill the 60s the Chinese aviation industry was based on Russian technology and expertise only.
actually, there were also some captured/ deffected american stuff from the korean war and form taiwan.
Since 1989 the West forced China back to Russian technology and expertise.
only in the military feild, hell, not even that! i wonder how you would explain things like the HQ7, Z9s, harpy etc just to name a few.
co-operation in the civilian sector between china and the west is a strong as ever, and a vast flow of technology and even duel use equipment has come into the PLA’s possetion throw such channels (the state-of-the-art machine tools at SAC and CAC are just the tip of the iceburg).
China has a gap of 3 decades in development to close in many fields.
care to name a few?
Money helps a lot, but some things take a lot of time and expertise. Do you remember which way Pakistan choose to become an atomic-power? When those honorable Pakistanies worked in Europe, they signed contracts not to give away some secrets related to their work.
i have seen a couple of these agreements in my days. they merely prevent one from sharing the details of the projects with others (ie the critical numbers for new engines they were working on for example, new techniques developed etc). they dont prevent someone from using the experience and knowledge that they gained themselves as individuals for other companies or countries.
anyways, the point isnt that important as the US military tend to specifically not use chinese in sensitive R&D (unless that the person in question is the only person on the planet that can do the job, they wont take you even if you are head and shoulders better then the next best american/european candiate) and i suspect the american military are not the only ones that does this. this means that the vast majority of chinese the return to china have worked in the civilian sector, and civilian secrecy contracts are much laxer then the military ones.
The same do Chinese in Russia and USA. The good thing is, that every technic has its limitations related to state of art. This in mind and how long it has taken to overcome some problems related to those, so even smaller infos give a good guess about what is to exspect.
huh? would you mind rewording that please?
The Russians are in no hurry to make their Flankers R-77 capable and the Americans to transfer the AIM-120 to Taiwan. :diablo:
wouldnt the fact that the russians are so cash strapped that they cant even afford to have their pilots fly proper hours have something to do with the slow rate of upgrades being done? ( i sure hope you were not suggesting that the russians have no intention of making their flankers R77 compatable, the russian air force is conducting a slow upgrading programme as we speak.)
and what does the russians having R77 on their flankers have to do with taiwan again? :rolleyes:
I never saw amercian technicans to help the Chinese to assemble the J-11s and overcome teething problems. Maybe you and some others have not the slightest idea, what kind of work and knowledge about an aircraft is neccessary to integrate an engine. The engine is not the single gas-generator to produce some thrust alone. All the systems of an aircraft are related in some way to it. 😉
that was a decade ago, times have moved on you know.:rolleyes: and the quality of built after SAC re-equiped more then made uo for their slow start. 😉
as for engine mechanics, well i might be no expert, but the chinese have been making jet enignes of decades, and they got far too many turbofan models in service or nearing completion for them all to be merely flucks or rip-offs.
as i said before (maybe not in this thread), it is often only a very few bottlenecks that prevent the chinese from making something from scatch, they have long since sussed all the other related feilds (and far surpassed the level needed to make that product in many cases). so once the bottlenecks have been breached, you dont see the slow crawl of development as is the case when technologies are first developed, but a flood of new products as the industry make use of the new materials/technologies.
plawolfthe only thing i have heard is that in the late 80s, the PLAAF came very close to hammering a deal with BAe for china to licence produce Harriers. the deal fell apart after tiananmen, but the chinese no doubt recieved detailed technical data on the workings of the harrier before that, which may aid and/or influence any later indigenous attempts.
plawolfThe Russians redesigned the AL-31F for integration into J-10 for example. Many Russian technicans are working in China and for China. If this is not enough, Russia has something like a military intelligence service. China is the most potent neighbour of Russia with the longest borderline. 😉
of the ‘many russians’ working in china, most are there as private citizens who found better jobs in china after the collaps of the SU. this means that whatever they learn while working in china is not going to pass back to russia.
as for those russians technicans in china that were sent by the russian government, almost all are there to help train personnel to operate and maintain russian made equipment, or to do maintanence and repares that the PLA cant/arent allowed to do/make.
a few will also be working on joint development projects, but most of the work would be shared between the participating companies independently, as such things are normally done.
thus far, i have yet to see anything even resembling reliable proof of russian government employees working on indigenous chinese projects. hell, im not even sure there are many private russian citizens working on such projects, and certainly none taking up senior positions withing design teams.
unless you have some faces, lets cut the idle speculations down a notch.
as for the intelegence services. unless you have some proof of the FSB (or whatever they call it now) is better then the CIA or NSA, i think its fair to suggest that the russian intellegence agency(s) know about as much of indigenous chinese military projects as the american ones do.
———————————
back to the topic, well this is not the first time that this has been brought up.
there is little to be gained for the chinese to buy any russian bomber unless they come with the newest weapons and ToT to go with it all.
the backfire is already obsolete, and the PLA arent really known for their taste of vintage stuff. 😉
plawolfwhy does the base of that J10’s vertical stabliser look distorted? was something PS out? :confused:
plawolfwell thats not what i really meant.
it is possible that some within the US administration or military has convinced themselves and some others that regime change (or maybe just the war itself) in iran is neccessary. however, they would unlikely to be able to muster the kind of support needed, both internally and internationally, to actually launch an invasion for whatever reason they really have in mind.
a ‘neat’ way around that problem would be to make the case for actions which might provoke iran into retaliating or better yet, a pre-emptive attack (while concerntrating on the need for the action, instead of the possible consequences while making the case for such actions, like taking out iran’s nuclear facilities). after that they only need to do everything they can to make sure that the situation quickly escalated into a full blown war…
a little conspriracy-like, but worse has happened on the watch of far better presidents.
plawolfi cant beleive some ppl still think that the US can get away with doing anything to iran these days.
sure, pre-iraq, there was very little the iranians could do to retaliate against the US if such an attack did take place. but now, with hundred of thousands of US forces right on the other side of the iranian boarder, iran could do plenty to seriously damage the US military.
the least they can do is just put a couple hundred of their newest MANPADs and portable anti-tank missiles in a couple of store houses right on the boarder with no guards, and $2 padlocks on the door, and speard the word to the anti-US iraqis…
a step up would be to loosen up boarder control, and let any yound partiotic iranians that wants to go to iraq and let off some steam.
a further step up would be to actually wip up public opnion to increase these numbers of volenters, and maybe also set up some poorly guarded arms depos aong the way for them to ‘loot’.
an even less subtile approach would be to send in special forces teams with all their normal gear except their IDs. if you lot thought the current insergency is bad, wait till you see how things would turn out if the rebels can fire morters half as accuract as normal US soilders (and thats a gross underestimate, as i expect iranian SF to be better the normal US troops); good snipers with large cal long range sniper rifles doing hit and run attacks against US patrols all over the country would also be extremely difficult to counter even with better snipers of you own….
the most the iranians are likely to take things is if they sent in regular troops in disgises and in small groups, to form their very own anti-US guarrela network. its highly doubtful that they would repeat the same mistake as saddam in sending an open army to attack an US staging area.
all of these things iran could easily do at any moment now. but they havent, and there are a good number of reasons why:
– the iranians know what they can do, and so does the americans, so in effect, its like a kind of detterance against US misadvantures against iran.
– the side most liked by iran looks set to gain power if the iraqi elections goes fairly. why waste money and lives and risk attack by the US if you are likely to get what you wanted anyways?
– dispite what they try to tell everyone, iran’s leaders and just like every other country’s – they like it in power, and would want to do everything in their power to stay in charge, and are unlikely to do things that are likely to put that at risk. the american’s detterance against iran.
– and dispite what the western media likes to suggest, iran’s leaders would also care about the best interests of their country, and would try their best to achieve it. even if you feel it is misguided.
an US attack would change all that.
with the US army a stone’s throw from their boaders, literally, and seeing the US as the ‘great satin’, iran’s leaders would be almost certain to see any attack on their nuclear facilities (their main and probably only detterance against a US invasion) as the prelugue to an actually US invasion. as such, they would be unlikely to hold much back in an attempt to counter the ‘invasion’ or just to try and take as many americans with them as they can.
purhaps the US high command are too arogent to accept that, or purhaps its exactly what they want (some of them at least). they might see some need or benefit from also engineering regime change in iran, but know the american ppl would never accept their arguments for war. so they manipulate the iranians into declearing war, or do something to swing US public opinon in favour of war.
plawolfwell, since i studied law at one point, i must point out that technically, even if the person(s) that leaked the information was reveiled, there is a good chance of a jury finding them not guilty because he/she will have a pretty good case. well thats if american law is anything like what we have here in england.
the principle falls under the general title of duress. i wont bore you with details, so simply put, if the informer sincerly beleives that what the pentagon is doing is illegal and is likely to needlessly start a war – ie costing far more lives then the ones he put in danger. and he has tried every course of action he can, within the rules, to try and stop it and failed, it can be argued that reveiling some of the secrets to the media might be a last ditch attempt to see that the lesser of the two evils is done.
is this that dissimilar to the case of abu ghraib? did the release of the pictures not put US and UK sericemen’s lives at greater risk? yet it was the right thing to do. or are you also going to tell us that the world would be a better place had some ‘bleeding heart’ kept what he saw to himself? :rolleyes:
plawolfI think both Iraq and former Yugoslavia are not the best cases for FACs. Coastal defence is not so easy if your opponent has full control of the open seas surrounding your land!
Let’s not forget this: the submarine remains the absolute weapon of sea denial. FACs, in an environment like the Aegean, may play a role similar to that of snippers in a land conflict. But I don’t see how a FAC force could hope to deny sea (and coast) control to a A/C carrier group stationed 200nm from the coast. You simply have 24/7 patrols by planes and helos, until you sink anything floating, and move on with your marine landing. End of story. :p
hmm, are we forgetting something here? 😀 i have constaintly stressed time and again that FACs are only worth anything in a real large-scale naval conflict if they are properly supported and not sent out on kamekazi runs by themselves. 😉
however, in these kinds of enagements, if i was the defending naval commander, i’d take a dozen 2208 kind FACs over any 3 or 4 corvettes. thats the point i was trying to make.
plawolfWrong. Nothing was either proved or disproved, to either direction. I still can’t bring you solid facts about what I believe is the Lavi origins of the J10, and you can’t show me it doesn’t have these origins. I’m reading this thread, and so far didn’t say much, but I hate seeing such expressions. Please avoid writing speculations under the cover of facts.
well, there is always the chance of some stubbern ppl not agreeing no matter how much evidence or logic disagrees with their views. 😉
its funny how you come up with a totally unsubstantiated claim, and its up to the rest of us to prove you wrong, istead of you coming up with the goods to actually prove the case you are advocating (and pointing at the general shape of the ac being similar is hardly irrefutable proof).
so far, everything you or your comrades have been able to bring up to support your claims have been answered, in that logic and common sense just doesnt fit with what you are suggesting, never mind some ‘inconvinient’ facts. all you have is a conspricy theory, which cant be disbelled in your minds even if the chinese government itself came along and denied the Lavi link, as it has done so, along with israel.
as i said before, we have been through the same things over and over again, and i have no intention of bring this thread further off topic then it already is, so if you have further qualms, please start another thread.
plawolf@plawolf
To realize what kind of threat these truck launched SSM is, you could look at the Balkan conflict. I’ve been told that american carrier groups weren’t willing to station in the Adriatic sea because of that Saab had delivered RBS-15 to Belgrade. The risk were to high. Perhaps dienekes can shed som light on this story?
and who won that? 😀
iraq also had truck mounted AShMs, and look what happened. if anything, these examples goes to show how limiting and dangerous relying purely on shore defences can be.
the ranges of almost all missiles are well known to the world’s various intellegence agencies, and the shape of a coastline of any nation is available to everyone on the planet for only a few dollars. with that, its doesnt take a genious to figure out how far forward you can push with immunity. and thats what happened. air strikes, recon missions, speical forces insertion and retival etc went like clockwork to spectacular effect in both cases.
however, with decent FACs, you take all that away. for your enemy to stay outside the operating range of you FACs is to effetively stay out of the war, but to operate within is to put the lives of thousands at risk. even if your FAC attacks comes to nothing (as they are almost certain to do without proper support), at the very least you would be able to disrupt enemy operations, and buy yourself time if not win a small battle or two.
plawolfCan some one tell me ,The J-10 looks very similar to the Israel lavi fighter , Did China bought the Lavi design??? Since Lavi was using Pratt & Whitney PW1120 turbofan, rated at 6,137 kg dry and 9,337 kg with reheat , Mating the Russian Engine AL-31F on a Modified Lavi Design is presenting problems. Structural Problems associated with the engine and the craft is bound to happen .
China has so far either reversed engineer the fighter ie Migs etc or just designed ( doubtfull though ) a low end fighter , so building a High-Tech 4th gen fighter even with borrowed Israel design seems to be a problem and since they dont disclose the problem in open or even the basic spec of J-10A from authentic source is not known , all we see is some PS’ed Image and so on .
The Chinese need to come open and clean on J-10 and stop hiding and revel the real reason and problem with J-10 , otherwise we will get lots of speculations, It dosent matter if J-10 fails for what ever reason , no one even in advanced western countries learnt things easily ,Failure is just a stepping stone towards sucess.
Well In case of India when you look at the LCA project its been open to criticism right from its inception , lots of challenges and steep learning curve , But the end result is that its coming up well , There are still challenges or call it risk factor like the kaveri engine or the MMR , but nothing which cannot be overcome .
But with J-10 its seems like a borrowed Israel Design with a Russian engine is creating problems which is deliberately being hidden.
oh great, here we go again for the Nth time. :rolleyes:
the superfical similarities between the J10 and Lavi have been brought up before, and desipite the efforts of a few hardcore ‘beleivers’, the claims have been categorically disproved.
there are far too many critical differences in areodynamic design for the J10 to be a mere knock off, and the effort and design expertise needed to make these changes upon the Lavi airframe would not be much more then if CAC just started from scratch.
the reason the J10 has the AL31NF is because its intended powerplanet – the WS10, encountered difficulties and was delayed.
if you want more details, just do a search on this very forum and you will find the original thread.
If that is True , and if its such a Grand sucess , They should come out with its vital stastics and its entire testing phase , no of hours flown and difficulties it encountered , All countries does wheather its the US F-22 or Typhoon or Grippen , even India’s LCA ( visit ADA website you will find the details ) , And all have encountered some sort of Failure’s like the Grippen and F-22 Crashes , which is quite normal for a high tech aircraft .
LOL! according to the chinese government, there is no such plane as the J10, so i’d be more then impressed if you can find any offical article praising it or announcing its ‘grand success’. :rolleyes:
the PLA couldnt care less about how other nations handle the PR in relation to their military projects. as far as they are concerned the J10 is a weapon for the PLAAF, not some certificate of achievement to be waved about as if one was afraid someone wouldnt notice it. :rolleyes:
the PLAAF gains nothing from letting anyone outside their decision making structure knowing anything more about the J10. hell we’d probably still not know what the J10 really looked like or even be sure that it existed had it not been for some over zealous engineer releasing some granny pics on the internet (and he was jailed for it, which goes to show how much the PLAAF values their privacy). after the J10 was out of the bag, the PLAAF saw little use in keeping such a tight hold on pictures, and no doubt yeiled to pressure from CAC to be able to take credit from their work, and we have been getting a steady stream of J10 pics with ever increasing detail.
however, the utter confusion of the rest of the world to gague the J10’s potential is evidence as to why the PLAAF is still so secretive. so far there isnt even concencous, amounst experts and ametures alike, as to what generation the J10 really belongs in.
But for J-10 we hardly find any details about it , except for some Grand Praises and Internet Speculations , If internet speculations is to be believed about its Grand Sucess , then I am tend to believe even the latest news by Kanwa , that “three reinforcing bands were added between the air-intake and the fuselage. “This is a biggest design failure for the J10”
well, i’d advise some english lessons too while your at it.
the comment about the three reinforing bands was in comparison to the J10’s other minor ‘shortcomings’ (of which i have yet to hear about). that was the most ‘serious’ problem of the lot, and since even that can only be described as trivial, its just goes to show what an utter meal KANWA is making of tiny bugs and glitched that plague all projects of this size and complexity.
The J-10 is no B-2 , to hide its real intention or stastics , Specially for a country which is trying to make a 4 th generation fighter for the first time , Claiming that China operate military different from other country is hardly a justification for not providing hard stastics on J-10 , We need hard stastics and vital data on that aircraft , also what kind of difficulties it had faced during flight test programme and the number of hours flown by the prototype. The Kind of Information which is available for all the 4th generation aircraft under testing .
so austin, why dont you enlighten the rest of us as to why you ‘need’ to know anything about the J10? does your life depend upon it? even if it does, that is hardly reason enough to convince the PLAAF to even offically acknowledge its existance, never mind release valuable information about it.
When I look at those kind of answers on J-10 , It makes me all the more proud of the LCA programme, The challenges faced and technologies mastered during the process , Inspite of all the sanctions and hardly any previous experience to make an aircraft of the class of “LCA” .
Surely they could have hidden themself behind the statement “That we operate differently ” But the courage to Face Criticism and to Work and Suceed against all Odds was there in the LCA Team
Its better that J-10 suceeds and sees service in the chinese airforce , rather than turn in to a Failure as reports suggest , To Export one should understand that one need to show hard data , rather than PS’d pictures.
and now austin starts to show his true colours. :rolleyes: if you want an excuse to go praising the LCA, please go ahead and start an LCA thread. the LCA has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so if all you have to say is regarding the LCA, then please take your flag waving elsewhere and stop going off topic.
as for exporting, well CAC and the chinese government knows how to sell planes. go and have a look at how the FC1 programme is being run for example (the FC1 is also made by CAC since you’d probably not know).
this must mean….(come on, its not that hard to grasp)…that the chinese government doesnt want to export the J10 just yet. so, there is no need to advertise it is there? :rolleyes:
hell, even with all the secrecy, the J10’s export potential looks promising, with the PAF already publically stating one numourous occations that they are interested, and at least one other air chief being pretty impressed by it. so you neednt worry about it all that much.
plawolfMoney? China got plenty!!!
so? still no reason to waste it. :rolleyes:
As u mention B-52,why B-52 a bomber in the 50’s still highly value by the US? Continue update makes it survive today! U can say abt the Backfire.What China need to master Backfire is the design,engines! System? China may update itself by the time a indigenous Tu-22 produce.
so, what makes the H6 so ‘special’ that it cant be upgraded in the same fashion as you stated? oh wait, it is being upgraded all the time.
the speed of a bomber isnt all that important anymore, that was the reason behind the B52 example. if the chinese really wanted a super long-range bomber with eye poping payload, they can just modify some boeings or airbuses to make their own B52-like bomber.
That’s right! Tu-22 got a speed of 2Mach while H-6 got a 0.9Mach.Tu-22 Range and payload r way ahead of H-6! Tu-22 survivibility is higher as PLAAF still do not possess the air superiority of USAF! Which they can afford to escort a slow B-52 bomber!
and what is the PLAAF going to do with that much more range? provide CAS for troops invading the US mainland? :rolleyes:
as for speed, well top speed means nothing. with a full bomb/missile load, even if the backfire can manage to reach anything near its fully speed, the rate of fuel consumption will not allow it to travel very far.
as for the USAF. ha! what makes you think that the Tu22 has anything but a miniscual chance of getting past the USAF with no fighter support? even the USAF cant assure the survival of its B1 bombers against even a modestly capable air defence without having fighters go in to clear the way first.
i was being kind before when saying the Tu22 will be obsolete by the time the PLAAF RE it. its already obsolete, all bombers that rely on speed to penetrate enemy air defences are! the future of bombers lie in stealth (and purhaps jamjets but that is cleary not relevent here), as no matter how fast a bomber can go or how low it can fly, there will always be AWACS ac and radars that can spot them further and further away (hence giving fighters just as much if not more time to get into position to intercept).
I don’t think weapon is a problem! Just seen a YJ-12 SSM photo.YJ-12 spec may be 300km and speed 3M. Imagine Tu-22 carries 4 YJ-12.
still pure speculation, and the russians got missiles that are even better. right now the PLAAF/PLANAF is working towards H6s with 4YJ12s. not a great deal of difference from your Tu22 bomb truck. the only thing sufficently better to justify a Tu22s purchase would be the thousand mile missiles that comes with. but the russians arent going to let them have that kind firepower, so the PLAAF arent going to be interested. they’d much rather spend the money that would have been wasted on the backfire on R&D of stealthy bombers and/or ramjets.
OMG! H-6 design is earlier than Tu-22.How can Tu-22 (70’s)gone first than H-6(50’s)? Whay logic is that?
huh? as i said before, all bombers that rely on speed alone are obsolete, even if that speed is complemented by state-of-the-art ECM. only difference being that the Tu22 is slightly less obsolete.
if you are refering to airframe time left. well Tu22s havent been manufactured in nearly two decades IIRC, so all the examples left dont have that many hours left in them. on the other hand, china is still pumping out brand-spanking new H6s. so the Tu22s will reach the end of their usefullness long before the newer H6s.
plawolfI think not! China will buy Backfire but not in large number(4-8).They know the Russian will sell them old stock with only few hundreds of flying hour left.So they buy small number for evaluation and try to intergrate into their own design or purely Reverse Engineer! Few yrs ago,they try to buy Backfire but was rejected.I bet they still have problem trying to build their version of new Strategic bomber with the obsolete H-6 still in production line! Backfire possess the payload ,speed and range not available in PLAAF inventory! Backfire will definitely be valuable for PLAAF.
trying to RE or building a derivatine of the backfire will take many years, not to meantion extremely expensive. so by the time the PLAAF have their own production Tu22s, the design would again be obsolete. a very high price to pay for a slightly less obsolete ac type then the one they already got. :rolleyes:
the most important aspects of a bomber are its range, payload and speed.
the range of the H6s are sufficient for the job at hand, and while their payload leaves much to be desired, for the kind of money you need to RE and produce backfires, you can build enough H6s to carry far more bombs.
in this day and age, the weapons a bomber can carry is far more important then the bomber itself. just look at the B52! the PLAAF will probably be interested in the advanced weapons the russian backfires can use (well, some of them anyways), but its doubtful whether the russians will release them.
if the russians do allow for the PLAAF to take their pick of weapons to go with the Tu22, the PLAAF will probably buy the plane, but for the weapons instead of the plane itself. so some years down the line, you’d see the backfires in museums, while H6s will still be trotting about with their new found toys.
Sign In
