@ Levsha.ù

Dunno
Maybe because there are no white people involved ?:dev2:

So we can hereby conclude that the article on National Interest i.e. the argument of last page discussion, that is centered almost exclusively on the F-35 is pure rubbish quod demonstrandum erat.

Just add that this exercise is of the foremost interest for those air forces, like RAF , AMI (but PLAAF and VKS also) that are actually producing or acquiring both 4,5 than 5 gen planes as it show how those two categories of planes can operate together in a synergic way, so to justify also the current investment in things like Storm Shadow, CAESAR and Meteor.

And what kind of guidance was it, voice?
Other part has a direct data link between planes enabling one to gave the other the coordinates to launch missile.

To use the world of the aviationist article: While the scenario sounds like a futile effort for Red Air, it is key to understand that this exercise is not a game where the highest kills wins. Rather, the primary purpose of the exercise is to ensure Blue Air (our collective nations fighting edge) refine Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs). With common, familiar TTPs, the coalition will quickly come together in the face of a future conflict and be effective, day one.

So in this case, the same objection that was used for the famous F-35 High AoA manoeuvre fiasco against the F-16D with two tanks apply: it was not intended to be a real combat simulation, just a proof of concept.

Needless to say, the T-38 and F-15E in this case are absolutely not a viable placeholder for planes of an air force that utilize a similar sort of direct data exchange from the early eighties…
So, it was more an USAF legacy aircraft against modern NATO 4,5 and 5 gen planes thing.

Only limited use would be get a mold for these air forces that have not access to the original production line and blueprint(see Iran) and build one by one when need arise, but you would still need high grade materials.
You can reuse the scrapped pieces and mold it again if is metallic but in case of composite/ceramics let’s forget about it.

@maurobaggio
No, PAK-DA is not intended to substitute Tu-160 at all, PAK- term is just the russian corrispective term of new generation NG- acronym, it doesn’t mean that all actual planes in service would be substitued by it, nor in the case of -FA than -DA as they have different planes covering the role.
About mission, strategic bombers were designed to ensure a permanent presence, trough rotation, in their respective launch zones so to have a deterrent effecct.
In the case a nuclear conflict would start they are there and can begin launching their own devices in any case, no need to reach them.

Thik that almost all the partecipant countries would have something in every F-35.

@Sab3r329
Man , you have not any idea of a strategic bomber force routine.
According to your idea it seems that they are all sitting in their own air base waiting for the alarm bell to ring signalling a nuclear attack, after it they take off and have to run thousand of miles before launching their missiles toward attacking country.
In the mean time all their homeland have been ravaged by enemy ICBM and SLCM but who cares? Important thing is to made a beautiful mach 2 run.
Just doesn’t work like this, strategic air forces are instead organized to keep a permanent presence in their own launch zones through a constant rotation of their own assets , so to have always a plane incoming before the one on patrol have to left it.
For this boring but absolutely necessary deterrence mission subsonic planes are clearly greatly advantaged as they have not to cope with the design restriction needed to fly in supersonic mode.
The same longevity of dinosaurs like Tu-95 and B-52 is a proof of that, no need to reinvent the wheel there.
Supersonic bombers are instead more fit for a theater level and long duration, conventional engagement.
This is not a problem however because we are talking about a two item forces not between choosing one instead of the other.
So the question would instead be IMHO if it is more convenient to develop a new subsonic VLO bomber or if it would instead be better to keep Tu-95 instead. Or also if it is better to use the PAK-fa or the Tu-160M2 to cover actual Tu-22M role.

@ Spudman

Surely you can use radarless planes as OpFor but in a WVR engagement, using them instead in a BVR simulation is just as expecting a tin can to take advantage of any Plinking Gun mistakes.