Tiny silly toy compared to the chinese UADFs. Looks big in the pictures but this thing seem to be smaller than a small jet trainer, with a similar size engine.
Tiny silly toy compared to the chinese UADFs. Looks big in the pictures but this thing seem to be smaller than a small jet trainer, with a similar size engine.
its literally a repackaged target drone lmaoTiny silly toy compared to the chinese UADFs. Looks big in the pictures but this thing seem to be smaller than a small jet trainer, with a similar size engine.
Try reading about the Qaem.I am sorry, but what? The US has intercontinental ballistic missiles and has solid rocket motors for all kinds of applications. Sure the industry has atrophied, but Iran has never nor ever will be on par with US missile technology (in any shape or form).
And M7 has been reported at or better. Some have claimed sub MOA groups others 1.5 to 2 moa. This whole pissing match is bogus as it is dependent upon the Human factor. Just about any modern service weapon is mechanically more accurate than the trained evolved primate pulling the trigger.No you should totally expect any modern service weapons to be at least 2 MOA accurate. Mosin nagants weren’t even as bad as 4 MOA (on average).
Are they really pushing that to be a real CCA contender? It look more like a system evaluation aircraft.
The Air Force told lawmakers it of 1,558 manned, combat-coded fighters to carry out and sustain operations at a low risk, nearly 300 more than it has now.
An Air Force official, during a conversation with reporters Thursday, acknowledged this is an aspirational plan that it couldn’t achieve without a significant budget boost. Its primary purpose, the official said, is to send a message to decision makers on what the Air Force needs to carry out all its missions — and if that’s not in the cards, to prepare for scenarios where not all of the service’s desired missions are achievable.
Interesting to see those numbers, is there such a summary and planned/desired fighter aquisitions for USN too?
Nothing really surprising here. The US Air Force cannot continue to buy so few aircraft and expect to stay relevant. They need to get rid of all old F-15, F-16 and A-10s and replace them with new built F-15, F-16 and F-35. They need all three airframes because only then can total production be high enough to meaningfully recapitalize the fleet. They need to be procuring around 100+ airframes per year for next eight to ten years to complete this process.
Here is a better breakdown showing the max production rate scenario.
I think without this type of investment the US Air Force will shrink into irrelevancy on the global stage.
No because the Navy did a much better job maintaining continual production of F-18 Super Hornets. They didn’t stop procuring aircraft to just let the fleet age out.Interesting to see those numbers, is there such a summary and planned/desired fighter aquisitions for USN too?
LM’s promise that "the next version of the F-35 will be better and will be delivered on time" has lulled USAF into a false sense of security for 15 years.No because the Navy did a much better job maintaining continual production of F-18 Super Hornets. They didn’t stop procuring aircraft to just let the fleet age out.
As soon as it became apparent the F-22 was going to be cut short and the fact that F-35 was not progressing on schedule they should have started buying F-15 and F-16’s to fill the gap. If they started that ~15 years ago they wouldn’t be in the situation they are today.
The Navy might have complained about Congressing forcing more F-18 buys on them, but that keeps a steady stream of new airframes coming in.
I think it is worth mentioning that the Air Force has pursued upgrades for the F-15 and F-16, but eventually a ~30 year old airframe is just too old, regardless of GaN radar, new mission computers, displays, electronic warfare, etc.