MSC is what really makes the USN a global power.

Honestly, this should have happened much sooner, but tanking wasn't as deadly as carrier landings, and didn't affect operations because of weather, so less of a priority. It took less than 10 years to develop and make operational the SPN-10 ALCS. The majority of which was figuring out how to cram in enough analogue…

Changing to engine to a diesel would require a complete redesign of the M1 hull.

if the Air Force didn't have a stick up its butt over fixed wing Army Aviation, the Army would probably have taken in the OV-10 and keep the A-10 flying as well

USN doesn't want to consider SSK's because our allies already have them. If we were to fight say Russia, NATO members combined have quite a few SSK's available for littoral operations while USN/RN/FN SSN's would patrol offshore.

Fundamental differences in military policy. Since Alfred Mahan, the USN is been mainly concerned about projecting power abroad. This reflects in everything from doctrine to hardware procurement.

It does flesh out the ASW component, but most of their destroyers already carry SH60s.

The 3 things you notice about the JMSDF once you get past the name

Yeah formation pictures were terrible, especially if you had to wear service dress in the sun and heat all day.

Funny when "destroyers" are heavier than the Washington Naval Treaty crusier tonnage limit

It is amusing that cruder engineering is now the savior of the AF. The advancement of engineering has allowed for less over engineering and precise design lifetimes. However, when you pair precisely engineered lifetimes with military procurement, you have a train-wreck in the making from day one. The…

from the back it would sound like a very intense game of red light green light

All about risk/threat assessment vs cost in the end. And most would say the threat to commercial aircraft is pretty small even over contested territories. Because no one who can shoot down commercial jets at altitude really wants to and tries their best not to. Even for manpads, targeting civilian airliners rarely…

The 52's are in a dying spiral and the low man on the totem pole. Weak thirsty engines means more costs and less payload, which means the AF has a case to use platforms like the B-1B more (which they have, a lot). Less missions, gains you less priority and a weaker argument for upgrades.

I feel like this is a return to the 60's when SAC had those BUFFs on airborne alert.

It would be like you trying to talk to a fax modem from a regular phone. Why not keep it in fax mode all the time? We all love that squealing sound.

mmm brings back memories of Oregon Trail.

russians don't have cats on their current carrier. Best chance for a cat shot would be the Brazilian Sao Paulo (Foch)

That is the commemorative tail art for 20 years of using the hornet in the RAAF. Hard to tell the squadron from just that. But since they are flying the 2 seater b model, i would assume these are from the No 2 Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) which according to some friends who met the aussies at red flag is…

Here's more data to back you up. R9 270x (rebadged Pitcarin 7870) vs R7 260x (rebadged Bonaire 7790) benchmarks.