Don’t confuse air-frame age with the weapons capabilities of the 52. it has an extremely deadly weapons suite

if the USMil wanted to intimidate NK then the Reagan from Yokosuka would be in the area. This is a political reassurance, nothing more. I imagine phone calls were made as well.

Spot on, in recent (~3-5 yrs) DACT the APG-63v3 is proving to be extremely capable against high end 4th gen threats

the point of the Buff flight was to reassure regional allies, mainly SKorea, not stop NK from launching their SAT.

agreed on both counts

nobody is criticizing the capability of the European subs, more so asking how reliable those navies actually are (mainly due to funding). Having a sub force is one thing, keeping the boats on patrol and under the layer is an entirely different animal

pretty sure he was just using photos to illustrate his point that the door was not armored

real life details have no place in this discussion, we are discussing politics in a vacuum here. Please return when you bring more hyperbole to the party

keep in mind this is a message board and those who shout loudest are often overcompensating for a short coming somewhere else.

When IOC is met, The -35 will be able to operate in environments that 4th gen’s cannot

Reassurance to allied nations in the region. “if things turn hot here (the pacific) then the USAF will be there with you” sort of thing.

You bring up some excellent points and this is a very complex situation. The points you make about Iraq needing to own their future are spot on, ultimately it was their responsibility to rebuild their country post-Saddam. However, to discount the impact that Paul Bremmer and his CPA had on the future of that country…

Those are relevant facts to this discussion...so unneeded in a conversation involving Theroux or several others

I understand where you are coming from, but it is important to remember that this article is about an aircraft that was being designed in the 70's. it was validation for a new concept of war at the time. over the years since this successful debut the US has improved and refined this doctrine.

I have noticed you do a lot of criticizing which is perfectly within your rights. Having said that I must ask, what is your tactical explanation of how you’d rather the USAF destroyed this target. Seems a perfectly legitimate target during a declared war.

shooting down something that doesn’t want to be shot down is difficult. comparatively more so in Jan 1991 than now.

MK-77 is old news. The BLU-118B TD was dropped by a Mudhen in March 2002 against a tali cave system in Garduz. believe we spec’d about 10 BLU-118's for the opening stages of OEF. the ability to create more is there if needed but everything i’ve seen puts our current stockpile of BLU-118's at >20

I doubt any Raptor driver ever really hopes to encounter the s-400 and i doubt any s-400 operator ever wants to KNOW that raptors are out there lurking. That would be an expensive day for all sides involved

-35 cannot carry the AARGM internally, the -22 cannot fire HARMS at all. -35's could be used to locate targets but -35's armed with AARGM’s are still gonna need to standoff at considerable range. -22's slinging SDB’s from +60 nmi is your new DEAD platform (in heavy IADS environs) until -35 matures its weapons systems

watched that as well, appears to be the s-400. around the 3:25 mark of the video you can see the 96L6E spinning