It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

f-22 vs 5x f-15s = ... ;))))

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
I am a tax payer and I am glad it is being spent on these R&D projects for the benefit of the US.


- the point is that it is not to your benefit.


I will not apologize for the US having more of something.


- not even to your fellow tax-payers if it is grossly beyond any possible need?


It takes hard work to get to this point.


- Historically that may be partially so.

Right now it is taking vast amounts of everyone else's money. You have a record spending deficit and a huge trade deficit.


If other countries want to compete with the US maybe they should stop complainng and start working harder.


- In terms of weapons? What the hell does anyone want another arms race for?

In terms of life? We get along fine, you worry about yourselves.

But that is a way too simplistic view of this. On the economics alone you are storing up big big trouble.....for us all, not just yourselves, which is why the rest of us have a right to comment and complain.


This technology will eventually get used, and you had better be prepared instead of sorry. War is not a fair boxing match.


- ....and that is the problem.

A noteable number of you now think the world should be dominated by the USA. Your notions of freedom only apply when people do things your way.

It will only bring ever more trouble.

You could take advice from former powers that once dominated the globe.......but you won't and you will come to regret it if you don't change your ways, as we came to regret some of the inevitable and unavoidable consequences of large 'empires'.




posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   

the point is that it is not to your benefit.


Yes it is to our benefit. We get all our good new toys the Raptor the JSF new Carriers new lasers new Anti missile defense shield its all good.


not even to your fellow tax-payers if it is grossly beyond any possible need?


Again why do you care its nor your money we can waste as much as we want your not paying for it so why are you so concerned? And it is needed we can keep fighting with 30+ year old weapons platforms


Right now it is taking vast amounts of everyone else's money. You have a record spending deficit and a huge trade deficit.


That's right its our deficit not your let us worry about that! I have never seen someone who descent live in the US so worried about our deficit its just funny to me. IF you are really worried about our deficit donate money if not then just shut up about it.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Again why do you care its nor your money we can waste as much as we want your not paying for it so why are you so concerned? And it is needed we can keep fighting with 30+ year old weapons platforms


- The point Westy is that it is not actually your money. Your deficit spending is a problem to the rest of us as the money is coming from the rest of us via the international money markets.

This is not good for you or us. At all.


That's right its our deficit not your let us worry about that! I have never seen someone who descent live in the US so worried about our deficit its just funny to me. IF you are really worried about our deficit donate money if not then just shut up about it.


- You have no clue how international finance works do you?

Your "conservative" (try not to laugh too hard) administration is borrowing and spending money like it is going out of fashion.

Given the interconnections in todays economic world this is not a good thing.....particularly when it is on weapons systems and quantities that are not needed.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As I said, "in the near future." As for a manufacturer, you do know that "Su" stands for Sukhoi and that "Mig" stands for RSK Mig. And yes, they are direct threats. The Mig is even nicknamed "the Raptor killer". You are correct in saying that they re not fully developed, but the Mig has been given 6 billion dollars to develope.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




- um, yeah, as you said elsewhere, wow a whole $6million to continue to develop a next gen fighter.....if that was it's true purpose. Coooo.

If you red the rest of the thread, you will find that the program was given 6 BILLION dollars. The million was a typo


The Mig has been suspended for years.


- Yes it certainly was, IMO $6 was probably about sufficient to stop the design team disolving and leaving and maybe had them refine some ideas to attempt export.

See above

I would be stunned (as I think you would be too, seeing you previous comments) if all that were needed to generate large numbers of seriously updated Mig 1.42/44's were a mere $6mil.

See above


Paper prototype? This doesn't look like a paper airplane to me...






- The problem is most pictures like this is that they are of what was originally thought to be called the su 37.....which as I said previously is a FSW equivelent to something F15-ish.

The su 47 is supposedly a further development of this with a far more stealthy shape. This is the paper aeroplane/airframe.

Su-37 is a better aircraft then the Eagle, so it is not "F-15ish"

Besides the previous su 37 flying under the new name the 'real' su 47 has not yet flown (according to any available accounts).

That's a paper plane in my book.


Russia, China, India ect ect ect would probably want to put these planes into ther airforce.


- Of course, everyone wants to best they kit they can get. That still doesn't nullify the fact that they are at least one gen behind F22 in most if not all systems.

This is where you are wrong. The new Russian systems are probably 90-95% of the raptor.


People would believe they are good because the Russians have a history of making very very VERY good aircraft. Dollar for dollar, they make they best planes in the world.


- In certain respects that has certainly been true at various times, I agree, but not today.

Not today? You are very mistaken. They have better aircraft then the F-15 today.


Because you need numbers. Having a lot of airframes allows you to fight in more areas while still having reserves. Yes, I agree that tech wins now adays, but here is the thing, you still need to match up with the enemies numbers, otherwise the can attack different places and you won't be able to defend them all.


- You're not wrong. But I completely disagree with the practical scales we are discussing.

No-one can afford to saturate the current high tech to the point where it loses even with 3rd or 4th gen stuff.

This is why the previous debate about 'need' is so daft.


Perhaps you didn't see the thread on how Indias airforce beat the USAF in recent wargames. They had the first look and shot, and thus won. That says nothing of Russias air force.


- Naa, sales patter. F15's on a tour, out of their regular working environment (ie missing the tactical advantages given by AWAC & JTIDS etc they would have had if it were for real).

.....and, come on, if you really think the Indian AF capable of defeating the USAF anyday of the week I suggest treatment. Serious intensive stuff too.

No, not AF vs AF. But the aircraft they were using are the current 4th gen fighters that the rest of the world is using.


The evidence is in the facts - the Eagle is old and needs to be replaced. Besides, there s no reason to become complacent.


- But that is just not true.

Some of the eagle fleet is very new (is the line still open? It was a little while ago, I know that). It is still more than capable of performing it's mission. (.....or maybe the manufacturers and their lobbyists lied to the DOD and Congress and the rest of the executive?)

Yes, some are new in the sense that they were recently built, but that does not change the fact that they are 30 year old blueprints. And that is old.

That mission has changes somewhat but nevertheless the eagle is one of the very best fighters available anywhere right now and will be in any realistic foreseeable future.

It is among the best today, yes, but will not be so in the future. The fact is that the stealth of the F-22 is needed.

The issue is not one of complacency it is of what is affordable and desirable.

The USA is currently sucking vast amounts of the worlds wealth in to support it's currency and fund it's vast spending deficit. A deficit which is currently at record levels and accelerating. This is not healthy for the rest of the world and it certainly isn't healthy for the USA - particularly when it coincides with a your enormous long-term trade deficit as it does.

What wealth are we "sucking in"? As I recall, we have a trade deficit, which means we buy more then we sell. Regardless, it the point is moot. We (the US) should be doing what is good for the US, NOT the rest of the world. You (the rest of the world) while having direct ties to our economy are none the less not our problem, so long as our economy continues to be strong.

.....and militarists who insist on enormous 'Rolls Royce' projects (everytime, without fail) are a dangerous menace in such a situation IMO.


These "RR" projects are what lead to inovative important mainstay tech in the future. Plus, incase you didn't know, they stimulate te economy, not hurt it.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If you red the rest of the thread, you will find that the program was given 6 BILLION dollars. The million was a typo


- Well the truth is even $6 billion is hardly what it was either.....especially in view of the clapped out state of Russia's forces and infrastructure.

I still say, so what? Big deal.


See above


- quite.



Su-37 is a better aircraft then the Eagle, so it is not "F-15ish"


- It's a good airframe, very agile.....and what? Are you now claiming it's systems are better than those fitted in a late model eagle? Get real.


This is where you are wrong. The new Russian systems are probably 90-95% of the raptor.


- You cannot possibly know this.

As said before, they might even have a handful of nice agile airframes knocking about the place, those are not practical developed packages.

Russian electronics (particularly their micro-electronics) and computers are not the equal of the west's and haven't been for years (which means their manufacturers developmental systems aren't comparable either never mind the stuff in the actual aircraft).

In any event they have no money to support or develop them and a new $6billion is a drop in the ocean.

Their airmen, workforce and support staff aren't even able to depend on regular salary cheques for goodness sake!


Not today? You are very mistaken. They have better aircraft then the F-15 today.


- For the above reasons I think this is so utterly far of the mark as to be risible.


No, not AF vs AF. But the aircraft they were using are the current 4th gen fighters that the rest of the world is using.


- In tiny numbers, with none of the wider tech support to speak of.

This is absurd. There is no possible practical scenario where the USAF is likely to be defeated in any conceivable situation.


Yes, some are new in the sense that they were recently built, but that does not change the fact that they are 30 year old blueprints. And that is old.


- The outline of the airframe is old, yes. That is the basis of a very foolish underestimation IMO.

Many of the systems are very new. Some of the F15's are brand new and many are recent.

I find your arguements just don't hold water. Sorry.


It is among the best today, yes, but will not be so in the future. The fact is that the stealth of the F-22 is needed.


- Ultimately that is probably so but not for a long time yet. I have no problem with the F22 happening, it's just that you can't afford them (and luckily for you guys you don't actually need them) in anything but moderate numbers.

No one else can afford to develop a genuine competitor to the F22 and even if they did no-one can afford to deploy it in any numbers. Then there are the advanced integrated supporting systems within which F15 or F22 operates. You cannot ignore these, even if you do try to.

The 'threat' just isn't there.


What wealth are we "sucking in"? As I recall, we have a trade deficit, which means we buy more then we sell. Regardless, it the point is moot. We (the US) should be doing what is good for the US, NOT the rest of the world. You (the rest of the world) while having direct ties to our economy are none the less not our problem, so long as our economy continues to be strong.


- How do you think your gov actually finances it's deficit spending? Where do you think the 'real' money comes from to give value to the 'credits'?

You have the 'double delight' a trade deficit which is eroding the value of your currency but offsetting this the $'s 'value' is being propped up by the foreign money your gov borrows to fund it's spending projects......however the medium to long-term effect of both is potentially very very bad.

You as a nation are in such deep hock - more than anyone has ever been - it is not good for you lot nor us on the outside either.


These "RR" projects are what lead to inovative important mainstay tech in the future. Plus, incase you didn't know, they stimulate te economy, not hurt it.


- see above. You would be advised to start thinking that things might not always just 'work out OK'. They don't. Countries have been known to go bust you know, even those that could never imagine it happening.

If your international creditors ever called in any of the money in a serious way you would be in the deepest of dire situations.

You should be nicer to the folks you owe so much large to.



[edit on 13-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I think it is safe to say that wewill probably ot agree on the need for the raptor or the effectiveness of potential enemy planes.

But I would end by saying regardless of the current air dominance of America, no country has ever kept it's dominance by non action. The Raptor is needed for the future, and is needed in large numbers. I think you should also keep in mind that if your countries were to try and collect all of that money, the WORLD economy would collapse, not just ours. You see, since the US represents between 15 and 20% of the world economy (depending on who you believe) every modern economy would go to the #ter in this instance, so I doubt your government would eer do this.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Ok point is no mater how much you say the raptor is not needed the AF will get around 250 of them and possibly more. You can argue all you want our DOD budget is not going down anytime soon. And i think is a good thing for our military.






WestPoint, Out.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I think it is safe to say that wewill probably ot agree on the need for the raptor or the effectiveness of potential enemy planes.


- Well like I said I have no problem with the F22 itself.

I just doubt the need for the numbers some want and yes that is because I believ the 'need' grossly overstated.


But I would end by saying regardless of the current air dominance of America, no country has ever kept it's dominance by non action.


- That's true. But then no country ever kept it's dominence. They just don't. Eventually the wheel turns. Always.

IMO the issue is does it turn kindly in the end or ruinously, you own policies and behaviour influences this greatly.


The Raptor is needed for the future, and is needed in large numbers.


- Well OK, IMO yes and no.


I think you should also keep in mind that if your countries were to try and collect all of that money, the WORLD economy would collapse, not just ours. You see, since the US represents between 15 and 20% of the world economy (depending on who you believe) every modern economy would go to the #ter in this instance, so I doubt your government would eer do this.


- Yeah, that's the bald truth.....but nevertheless at some point your IOU's start coming up to be paid. That's how gov bonds work. They are dated, it's not like we actually do really 'call the debts in'.

.......and yes, if you lot start to have problems paying (cos you don't want to pay the higher taxes required to pay back) then we all have problems.....especially you guys if you expect us to keep funding you by buying your gov bonds and bills.

The $ would become worthless internationally and within days at home; disaster indeed.

Thank God us europeans have our own 'world currency' now!


[edit on 13-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The US will not have trouble paying for anything. If it coes to it, costs would be cut - and I can promise you that most of it will not be millitary cuts.

BTW, where are you from? It's no fun always being on the defensive.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The US will not have trouble paying for anything. If it coes to it, costs would be cut - and I can promise you that most of it will not be millitary cuts.


- believe it AMM we all say that kind of thing. But time marches on and things change.

It might happen slowely but it might not but it always does nevertheless.....check out the British empire for proof. Britain had it all. Best tech in the world (by far), largest empire and network of alliances, a relatively settled empire too.....but it went and left us with a host of problems.


BTW, where are you from? It's no fun always being on the defensive.


- Don't be defensive matey, what for? I'm in Northern Ireland.

I see myself, quite happily, as British, Irish and European, unlike a few of the Brits I've seen here I'm very pro-EU. I'm 41 and have seen a fair bit I guess.

If I were American I suppose I'd be considered a 'liberal'......a noble term which I believe to have been disgracefully perverted in current US parlance.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- believe it AMM we all say that kind of thing. But time marches on and things change.

It might happen slowely but it might not but it always does nevertheless.....check out the British empire for proof. Britain had it all. Best tech in the world (by far), largest empire and network of alliances, a relatively settled empire too.....but it went and left us with a host of problems.


There are many differences between the past and the present. For one, the British Empire was based on Imperialistic expansion. Not so for the US. We have all of the land we need. England is a small country by it's self, and can not support the large population needed to maintain "super power" status without other land/people. The US on the other hand has a top 5 population and land area that is clearly and difinitively ours. There is no one to say that we need to give Alaska back to the natives for instance. But I would agree that the US will not be the lone superpower for very long. I see China nipping at our heels and maybe even Russia making a comeback eventually. Also, th differenc in tech then vs tech now is a little more extreme. The disparities are much greater, and give the US a distinct advantage.



- Don't be defensive matey, what for? I'm in Northern Ireland.

I see myself, quite happily, as British, Irish and European, unlike a few of the Brits I've seen here I'm very pro-EU. I'm 41 and have seen a fair bit I guess.

If I were American I suppose I'd be considered a 'liberal'......a noble term which I believe to have been disgracefully perverted in current US parlance.


Ahhh, I am a good bit Irish myself. The EU will be the downfall of Europe, mark my words. I see no problem with the currency, but rather the ease with which people can travel between vastly different countries. When Islam starts taking over Europe, you will see what I am talking about. Personally, I have great respect for the Britts, but I am afraid that does not extend to your European kin.

The reason the term liberal has such stigma attached to it here is not without reason. Liberals here go against what are country stands for. Take for example the last election - yes, Gore won the popula vote. This led every liberal and their mother to claim he should have won because "this country is a democracy."

What they fail to understand is that the US is not a democracy at all - rather it is a democratic republic. Ths is for a reason - to give the individual state more power. However, because of this (the poplar vote not gaining presidency) many liberals simply want to change the rules. One such exmple is Mrs. Clinton. I could go on and on about why liberals are so ad in this country, but I won't.

To stay on point, To replace all F-15's with F-22's would cost only an addition 10% then to simply upgrade the same F-15s to modern capabillity. For that 10%, you get extreme advaced stealth, supercriuse, and airdominance for the next 2 decades - that seems well worth the extra few billion to me.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homyrrh
As for cockpits, both are very pilot-friendly. The joysticks are on the right, and I believe it can be put on the left for left-handed pilots. All missle-control buttons and switches are located on the joystick head so the pilot doesn't have to divert his line of sight to the dash. And speaking of the dash, the F-35 has one that is a giant touch-screen. Basically, it's pick your target and press a button.


Many NATO combat aircraft are the same. In fact, some of the Eurofighter systems are voice-activated (i think the Raptor has a similar system).

Remember, the reason that NATO air forces are so good isn't just because of the good fighter/bomber planes, it's also the great missiles, the maintenance, the backup missions (refuelling, AWACS, ASW, tac recce..) but most of all, the training.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
What the hell would anyone bring up NATO for? When it comes to NATO, America has to do the dirty work. They don't have anywhere near the technology of America.

Simple fact is, no plane could really compete with the F-22 unless it has very good stealth. The F-22 has long range radar, long range missiles, high accuracy, and supercruise. It can simply track enemy fighters from huge distances, fire, and move out of the combat zone without the enemy even knowing its there. Even after firing the F-22's missiles won't appear on enemy radar until its far too late.

Mass numbers don't cut it against the F-22. 50 F-22's backed up with F-15's would be more then enough for any existing air force.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
What the hell would anyone bring up NATO for?


Because NATO co-ordinate things like AWACS (All Nato and allied Air force AWACS are interoperable with Nato and allied radar systems), JTIDS, missile interoperability, signals interoperability....


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
When it comes to NATO, America has to do the dirty work. They don't have anywhere near the technology of America.


Off the top of my head, the US has nothing to compare against Storm Shadow, ALARM or Nimrod.

Simply because you are American does not mean that every single thing that american navies, air forces and armies has is better than everything any other ally has, that's arrogance.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Storm Shadow-This thing costs over 1 million per missile. It may be better then 20 year old American military technology, but in just a few years America will be releasing a new line of hypersonic (mach 7, so far above hypersonic, really) cruise missiles that will destroy all competition.

ALARM-America has used this since 98. I really don't see a point in even bringing this up. It's not really something that's going to give you an edge in a war.

Nimrod-This is hardly an edge for NATO. America has the best anti-submarine and patrol aircraft in the world.

All the technology NATO has is just bought from the members of NATO. NATO in itself has no power. Take America from NATO and it can do nothing. Put America against all other NATO members and they'd be crushed.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
ALARM-America has used this since 98. I really don't see a point in even bringing this up. It's not really something that's going to give you an edge in a war.


After doing a quick search, we might be looking at different things. ALARM is also an anti-radiation missile. You thinking of the early warning satellite one?

What patrol planes do thet use? I thought they just used those turboprop ones...


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It may be better then 20 year old American military technology


It only matters that it's better than the enemy's air defence


[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   

After doing a quick search, we might be looking at different things. ALARM is also an anti-radiation missile. You thinking of the early warning satellite one?


HARM is just as good, if not better then ALARM. Considering HARM was developed in the late 60's (granted, it's received upgrades), that doesn't speak very well for ALARM.


It only matters that it's better than the enemy's air defence


America has the greatest missile defense on the planet. A mach 7 cruise missile like America is developing will be able to penetrate any defense for a good while. It's in another league compared to everything else.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
HARM is just as good, if not better then ALARM.


You sure?

"While HARM is something of a standard ARM in Western arsenals, British Aerospace (BAE) developed a next-generation ARM that made HARM look a little stodgy in comparison.

ALARM was designed as a "harassment weapon". Air-defense radars can thwart a conventional ARM by shutting down until the threat has passed, but ALARM is designed to win that game.

ALARM can be launched in a conventional ARM mode, climbing a bit to get a clear view, and then homing in on a target in a predefined area. If the emitter turns off, the missile homes in on its last known position.

However, ALARM has a "loiter" mode that makes it harder to fool. On launch, the missile zooms up to an altitude from 12 to 21 kilometers (40,000 to 70,000 feet), turns off its rocket motor, and pops out a small parachute that causes it to descend nose-down. During the descent, if the missile's seeker identifies an emitter, the ALARM discards the parachute, re-ignites its rocket motor, and dives into the emitter. The length of time that an ALARM can continue its parachute descent is long enough for strike aircraft to get through the air defense position.

ALARM also has a "dual" mode, in which it has the option of direct attack or a loiter attack, depending on if there is an emitter available for direct attack. The missile is highly programmable in any case, and can be programmed to navigate to a target area and target different classes of radars in order of priority. The missile's programming can be updated by the operator up to the moment of launch."

Of course you are american so you will never admit there is ever anythng anywhere that is better than one single american munition or craft, but for the neutrals watching the thread, more info:

"When compared to NATO's other main SEAD weapon, the HARM missile, the following comparison has been made.

The HARM was successful, has sold in massive quantities, is still in production and is being constantly improved.
The ALARM is no longer in production, used only by the RAF and has probably never made a profit.

However the British Aviation magazine Air Forces Monthly reports that a senior serving aircrew officer drew the following comparison,

The HARM is cheap and cheerful enough to overwhelm an enemy's air defence, but is easily defeated by a clever SAM operator.

ALARM is a stunning weapon with a superb record. [COLOR=blue]The same magazine reports that during the Kosovo War the Germans and Americans failed to destroy one emitter with over 100 HARM missiles, but the RAF destroyed the same emitter with a single ALARM.[/COLOR]

And a different source:

"According to Jane's, American and German strike planes fired about 100
Harm missiles at one Yugoslav target without success. The RAF finally
destroyed it with a single Alarm shot. The missile is expected to be
in service for many years."

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I knew the ALARM was good but I didn't know half of that stuff about it, thanks.

If all of Americas tech is better than all of Europes (like, HA!) Does that still apply now?

BAE buys Boeing Commercial Avionics Division

Also, its very nice of the USAF to allow us to put some of our inferior bits on them.

BAE begins A-10 FFC Upgrade

And as for the Americans having the best ASW aircraft, don't make me laugh!

When the RAF was looking for a replacement for the Nimrod MR2 the P-3 was dismissed as being too slow, too short ranged and generally not as good as the outgoing MR2, hence the decision to upgrade the MR.2 into the MR/A4 which will be all new except for the re-lifed fuselage and which the USN, if it was allowed by US politics, would have as an all new-build type. Before you mention the Boeing P-7, that won't fly until 2009 and enter service until a few years after that. It will lack the range or loiter capability of the Nimrod and all its tech can be accomodated in the Nimrod, but it won because it is American, C'est la vie.



posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
HARM has received many updates over the years to its systems. The main problem you all don't realize is that you're comparing more modern equipment to stuff America had for decades. ALARM was made in the late 80's, wasn't it? HARM was out in the 60's.


When the RAF was looking for a replacement for the Nimrod MR2 the P-3 was dismissed as being too slow, too short ranged and generally not as good as the outgoing MR2, hence the decision to upgrade the MR.2 into the MR/A4 which will be all new except for the re-lifed fuselage and which the USN, if it was allowed by US politics, would have as an all new-build type. Before you mention the Boeing P-7, that won't fly until 2009 and enter service until a few years after that. It will lack the range or loiter capability of the Nimrod and all its tech can be accomodated in the Nimrod, but it won because it is American, C'est la vie.


American UAV's give us an overwhelming advantage when it comes to reconnaissance missions. The Navy is looking for a cooperative system, not just relying on a P-7. It's only going to be part of a comprehensive net.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join