dark light

b1a2j3m4b5

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Japan launches F-X fighter RFP #2360210
    b1a2j3m4b5
    Participant

    If the mission was defence against cruise missile attack… why not?

    in reply to: Japan launches F-X fighter RFP #2360443
    b1a2j3m4b5
    Participant

    To get back to f-35 vs Typhoon, why does everyone always compare the number of internally carried missiles on the F-35 to external numbers on other aircraft?

    in reply to: Replacing the F-15E #2363030
    b1a2j3m4b5
    Participant

    Bring back the F-111!:p

    in reply to: Aircraft of yesteryear… today! #2366870
    b1a2j3m4b5
    Participant

    Maybe not from yesteryear but how about F-14?

    b1a2j3m4b5
    Participant

    It’s funny that no one wants a B1R but if the chinese had it everyone would say it was a game changer!

    in reply to: Harrier – Your Thoughts? #2383605
    b1a2j3m4b5
    Participant

    Taiwan should buy all the harriers they can get. Easy sale for the UK and save the money required to maintain and operate another airframe type.

    b1a2j3m4b5
    Participant

    Sorry if this has already been brought up but could the silent eagle be more about super cruise than stealth? The F-15 is already a great performer but needs too much afterburner to play with the F-22 and Pak Fa. Flying clean and with upgraded engines may close the gap.

    in reply to: UK to ditch F35B for Super Hornet? #2375098
    b1a2j3m4b5
    Participant

    Is it not better economy to go with the more capable jet? It seems modern wars (other than counter insurgency ops) blow up out of nowhere and are over in a matter months if not weeks. You fight with what you have operational. Having the capability to “kick down the door” , without having to ask the Americans to do it, may be money well spent.

    b1a2j3m4b5
    Participant

    By The Associated Press

    ADVERTISEMENT

    WASHINGTON – A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

    Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was “way down the list” of options. But he tells CNN’s “State of the Union” that such action now “seems inexorable.”

    He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it’s just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.

    U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.

    Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.
    —————————————————————————
    It seems to me most likely that any strike would be by ” coalition ” partners alone without Israeli involment for obvious political reasons.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)