I wonder if the B-36 could have taken the role of the B-52 with turboprops. After all, the most valuable aspect of the B-52 is now its size and range, not speed, and all the engine reliability issues of the B-36 came from carburetors, which wouldn’t be an issue today.
TomG
gallaghertw
Why not B-3? Besides, this would be a cool name in like 2002, but we are already two decades in. They didn’t call the B-52 the B-20, right?
It’s supposed to be stealthier than the B-2, actually. And the Lancer is by no means a “stealth” plane, it has some RCS-reducing features, but it is still very visible on radar. Even an F-35 kicks it to the curb in that category. The reason we use the Lancer is that it is fast to station, can carry precision munitions…
They aren’t going to build these. They may build one or two, as demonstration pieces, but they don’t have the money to modify all of them. They get headlines, the US Navy freaks out a little bit, and they can parade it on RT, but it won’t add too much to their capability.
They lost more than a million men in that war. Of course they were heavily involved. It was a total war for China, and we used everything in the arsenal except nukes.
Sad that every vehicle in the US arsenal has to have desert camo by default.
A pleasant reminder that while China may be a shower with unsophisticated and blunt brute-force hacking, the US is a grower when it comes to the sort of tactics it has brewed up. Stuxnet is over seven years old, and this sort of capability grows exponentially more often than not.
That would lead to every country in the region ganging up on them. They may be zealots, but they aren’t willing to commit national suicide to send a message they wouldn’t be able to follow up on.
They HAVE slipped. Suez was a big slap in the face to both them and France. That being said, militarily, they are a close third to the US and Russia in terms of expeditionary capability. They have managed quite well, IMHO
True. They just share a very similar lineage, that’s all. The Tu-160 is actually pretty similar to a B-1 concept some years back, the B-1R. Also a Mach 2+ missile carrier with reduced payload.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict= 21,500 casualties
Interestingly, the German economy used some pretty twisted math to hide the fact that their economy was contracting all through the 30's. Consumer spending dropped far more than military spending rose. It was a case of expectations declining faster than the economy.
That’s literally what I said. Thanks for agreeing.
Persian food is pretty tame honestly. No worse than Mexican or Canjun food
They could buy the R-37, which is probably a better missile. It has the benefit of about 40 years of development. And Russia has always put more effort into missiles than the US has.
Why? Even the CIA have admitted they haven’t had a nuclear weapons program since 2002.
Assad has killed far more of his people in the last 5 years than terrorism across the Middle East has killed in the past 25 years. Dealt with a protesting city by shelling it to the ground. Used Poison gas.
Ehh. As someone trained as an economist, that usually isn’t the case. In war, you make products that can’t be used for any sort of useful work. In the case of missiles, you make a million dollar unmanned airplane and crash it into the ground. Economically, you would be better off paying people to dig holes and fill…
“Preventing the communications link from being eavesdropped or spoofed is achievable with current crypto. Worst case, you can achieve perfect security just with an OTP longer than the loiter time of the drone.