Just how will the targeting be easier with a low viz dark badge painted in RAM paint??? :rolleyes: Or was this an attempt to be funny???

When I saw it my mind went directly to infantry playing darts.

…take the funny side of life…:)

Maybe you could explain the tens of thousands of bare metal aircraft that have served over the years? I’ve never said they weren’t Alclad or had some other surface treatment done. Someone said they didn’t paint the areas in question because titanium doesn’t corrode. I merely pointed out that if that were the reason for it they needn’t have painted the rest of the aircraft either but they did. The reasons those areas aren’t painted is because of heat and heat only.

However, you should agree that the parts that cover the aircraft structure are not made from the same material. Therefore, would it be strange that those parts are from different material than let’s say the parts around the cockpit?

Anyway, we don’t disagree. The main idea and reasons have been mentioned.

And as I said I spoke about my self and what I saw in systems I dealt with, professionaly.

To Funkycartel in belgium was a mistake of the 80’s that a lot of company in the world had done, tell me a company that produce miltary stuff that never “pushed” some govern to buy its products…

Knowing the things from inside? I can’t.

That is not exactly what happened to Soviet weapons, for example the F-4 in that case should be called a looser, the US lost more than 600 Phantoms only in the Vietnam War, Iran lost a lot too and Israel also lost several dozen, but no one here claims the F-4 was crap why?.

To support the idea, the A-7 that should be considered as a success in the
Vietnam War was an export failure.

However, the idea as it was mentioned in the begining of the thread is general so probably the main reasons to select one aircraft from the other is price and political pressure, in other systems though, the “combat proven” argument is a fact.

This is getting really funny 😀

If you focus in various other planes you ll see many “irregularities” like this one. Although views like that were common in sixties design I thought that so called 4th gen planes wouldn’t have.
They suppose to design their parts and dies in such a way to avoid shapes like that although if in doesnt’ create any practical problem then it’s ok.

I can’t get it with this strategy to flatten all houses in south of Lebanon. Let’s say that they do it in a range of 50 km from the border and then Hezbolah acquires missiles with 100 km range. Then they ll have to do it for another 50 km. It’s like using nuclear weapons to cause mass destruction. Israel will lose points politically.

I wonder if it is so difficult to instantly identify the location of hezbolah missiles and respond within minutes. I really wonder about the efficiency and the necessity of those artilery radars. What are they supose to do if not to locate for you launch points?

How do you figure? When the YF-22 flew the US had the option of the YF-23 but they CHOSE the YF-22 it wasn’t forced on them. With the F-35 it was the better aircraft and again the US chose it (although it could be argued that Boeing’s design was never a contender and thus the US was left with one choice). The US has three first class design houses any one of which is capable of winning any aircraft competition though Lockheed has never built a bomber.

I can’t disagree that LM won several contests and managed to be the main producing company of your air force arsenal. However, as far as I understand the discussion is mainly upon quantities. It’s not about the type since each type is produced by a single company.

To put it simpler. If you want to buy a tooth paste you go to super market and you have to choose between 10 or 20 different brands. However you realise that your money will go to only two or three companies, Procter & Gamble, Henkel or Johnson & Johnson. It’s exactly the same with LM.