A “capital ship” is the centerpiece of a fleet. Literally the same as how a capital city is the center of a state. It’s where leadership is located and the escorts around it exist mainly to support the mission of the capital ship. Unlike escorts, they are almost never commanded by anything less than a captain.

Nope. Been using this name for the better part of the year. YOU’RE SO VAIN I BET YOU THINK THIS SONG IS ABOUT YOU.

You’re not good with humor, or at least bad with ambiguity. Saying you’re serious does not mean you’re actually serious. That statement can even be part of the joke. In fact, few things are funnier than people who take ridiculous statements at face value.

Yeah...we’re not going to war with Russia or China. Not happening, because there’s NOTHING ON EARTH that’s worth the risk of nuclear war. Not Syria (lol, no). Not even Taiwan. So the F-15/F-22 combo just has to be better than whatever 2nd rate equipment Russia/China is selling to the third world. They always keep the…

1) No, the Raptor cannot supercruise at 60,000 feet. It’s dry thrust ceiling is roughly around 53-54,000 feet. It’s not even be supersonic at that height. It can go above that, but needs to use afterburners. Supercruise ceiling is somewhere around 48-49,000 feet.

Are you not a fan of reading comprehension, or are you deliberately trying to move the goalposts? You’ve yet to post anything Raptor-specific, and that IS the topic, not whether or not stealth in general makes IADS more manageable.

That’s only true if you’re interested in an airframe ($88 million) and ONE of the engines ($10 million each) and zero avionics to control either. The F-22A’s lowest flyaway cost was $136 million ($180 million including support costs). That $136M is in 2007 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $156M for the plane…

You really shouldn’t insult the math skills of other people when you don’t even understand that $740 million (the ACTUAL flyaway cost of a B-2, which doesn’t include amortized R&D) is way, way more than $300 million.

WTF do you think the DoD was doing for all of the 90’s and the bulk of the 2000s? They curtailed B-2 production, delayed the F-22, and kept the JSF on the backburner while they poured money into the F-14 ‘Bombcat’, F-15E, F-16 Block 50/52, A-10C, and B-1B conventional weapons suite?

Eh...it’s not really true that only VLO aircraft can operate in a modern IADS. Those are just the types that can fly with less EW support.

Sure, if you design the test a certain way, you’re going to get that outcome. It’s nothing special about the aircraft involved though. If you’re going to start from the ground, which quality you want the most in an interceptor is going to depend GREATLY on how far out the bandit is detected and consequently what kind…

Introductions without major problems are the exception, not the rule. My personal favorite is the B-1B, which had a fancy new radar, and a sophisticated jamming suite. Only problem is that they’d interfere with each other, so you could use the radar or the jammer, but not both at the same time because then neither…

More factless bluster from FA’s cadre of know-nothing-know-it-alls...

Big help in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Comanche was so far behind it would have never even made it into Iraq before we pulled out.

Thank you for proving my point. If we actually NEEDED more Raptors, we’d actually be using all of the ones we have. But we don’t need that many F-22s, so we skimp on upgrades and stick the b-units in the guard, reserve, and training squadrons.

Ehh...I’m going to call bullshit on that. The F-106, F-4 and later F-14 and F-15 were both faster than the F-104, mostly because the former all had variable geometry inlets. The Starfighter had fixed intakes which limited it to M2.1-2.2. The other fighters also all had much better range, although the heavy F-4 and…

Why the hell do we need $50 million stealth helicopters for recon in an age of disposable drones? Cancellation was so obvious even Don Rumsfeld could figure it out.

Actually, EVERYONE predicted the F-22 was more likely to be a light bomber than face air combat. That’s the entire reason they called it the F/A-22A for a couple years. That’s why they ended at 190 planes. The F-35 is a far, far better bomber, and despite protests the contrary, the USAF is mainly in the bombing…

The biggest mistake for a US general is ALWAYS the fact that the civilian leadership didn’t let them buy more shiny, fancy shit. Curtis LeMay went into retirement bitching and moaning over McNamara’s refusal to greenlight the B-70A Valkyrie, despite that plane being OBVIOUSLY obsolete before its first flight.

Nope. I don’t see it. So far, the only thing the F-22 has been used for is a A)show of force and B) a supersonic version of the F-117. We got along fine with only 1/3 as many Nighthawks as we now have Raptors.