You’re right, Lockheed is just a bunch of liars and the CIA documentation regarding the RCS design issues have all been completely fabricated :rolleyes: Do you even understand the propagation of RF energy from conical surfaces?

If you’re going to bring in generational RCS design concepts, then this is certainly relevant. You opened the door…

No what was it?

That’s very nice, but now go back and compare the Jag with the Mitsubishi F-1, not the FC-1!

dude you have to be doing this on purpose !!!!

He better hope he’s not.

What’s Have Blue then, -3?

HAVE BLUE wasn’t a fighter. The F-22 represents the third generation of stealth technology (or fourth if you’re competent), but is in fact a first-gen stealth fighter. The F-117 was not a fighter (designation aside), nor was the B-2.

About the B-2, seems that many people still dont understand what is it real mission

That’s ok, I’m not sure the USAF really does either sometimes 😀

the B-2 needs cover (yes 50 planes to escort) and tomahawks to clear it path

SEAD, EW, and fighter escort assets may often be used because they’re available to ensure survivability. This does not mean that they are required, where are you getting that from?

Of cause they can and they did so and do so. At least when they feel it will be a real threat to the own security. See nukes in Cuba about that or in Turkey. When those countries did set a “red-line” about that. To prevent nukes to Libya or NK are two other examples.

Of course they’ll do waht’s in their best interest, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have no real right to do so. And the US whining about nukes in Cuba was a complete farce, they were deterrent weapons countering the nukes we had in Turkey. The US wanted to have an advantage over the USSR, plain and simple.

At any rate Israel whining about an Iranian bomb is as amusing and idiotic as Iran whining about Syria supporting terrorists.

China, Russia, USA, Europe, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan all agree that Iran neither needs nuclear weapons, nor needs the ability to produce them

And they should be allowed to dictate to Iran because…? Iran should really pull out of the NPT.

The goal of U.S has NEVER been stability in Iraq, but the divertion of Iraqi oil to Isreal, your wasting your time believeing these fantastic explainations of why Iraq was invaded.

Hell, we can blow that theory apart just by looking at Iraq’s oil production figures :rolleyes:

The answer to the question is clearly Russia, with the MiG-21Bis-UPG (India’s BISON). Chinese produced FISHBEDs are J-7s, not MiG-21s.

😀

Seriously, in terms of performance, the J-7 is superior in its latest forms. In terms of weapons capability, the MiG-21BISON wins thanks to having both HOBS IR AAMs as well as BVR capability. Put an SD-10 onto a J-7 and you have a clear winner in both areas.

Understandible, but I kinda doubt this raid on Iran will restrict damage and death to the government of Iran only. How many Iraqis have paid the ultimate price because the US government wanted to give them freedom?

Not to get into a side argument, but a lot of the Iraqi casualties are due to certain insurgent elements blowing things up. However, I do see your point and agree to an extent. An all-out attack would certainly result in civillian casulaties, this is an unfortunate side effect of any armed conflict regardless of who is involved. But a limited strike on nuclear facilities may be different as a lot of those sites are in isolated areas.

The people of Cuba and North Korea and many other countries that manage to peak the ire of the west can suffer for years under sanctions that do very little to punnish the oppressive governments the imposers of sanctions like to think, but then to the west it seems the worst it can do is not kill an enemy… the worst it can do is isolate and make poor.

Yeah, the sanctions against Cuba are asinine and a TOTAL double standard. We sanction them for basically being Commies, yet China has MFN status? DOUBLE STANDARD. North Korea is an ENTIRELY different story though, as we are still at war. Were they to make an overture for an actual peace treaty then I’d change my stance there.

Out of context? By definition an offensive weapon must be used for attack. There is no benefit to keep an offensive weapon protected and hidden from a first attack if it is to be used offensively. How can context change that?

Because I was directly comparing a ballistic missile with a defensive SAM system. Yes, on a strategic level a ballistic missile in a hardened silo does provide strategic defense through deterrence, but at the end of the day it is an offensive weapon designed to attack targets. You’re arguing semantics here, I agree with your assertion that they can be viewed as a defensive asset, but they could also be viewed as offensive first-strike weapons which are now better protected from a preemptive strike.

Anyway I guess all we have to do is put ABMs in Europe, slide them into hardened silos, and Russia can no longer complain as they are then clearly efensive assets, right? 😀