Yes, never, as in “sure, Boeing slapped some on there for some promo pics, but the US Navy does not and will not ever send a real CAP up with that many missiles. Missile trucks are not happening even with networked warfare. ESPECIALLY because of networked warfare.”

Ada, though similar grammaticality to Pascal, is very different from it. And it’s not about the salaries and direct training costs, but the ongoing costs. It’s extremely wasteful to build up a huge dev team to rebuild the F-22 and then lay them off or keep them around just in case the USAF wants a V3.0.

F-18s never carry more than 6 AIM-120 in service. There is a long answer why, but it boils down to A) weight/drag and B) all those missiles change pilot psychology and tend to get them killed by sticking around too long. The name of the game is shoot and scoot.

Another unreported fact about the F-16-F-35 “dogfight” is that the specific F-35A used in that test was limited to 7G via software. Full 9G capability didn’t come until later software builds that hadn’t been installed on that jet.

It was different, but not for the reasons you state. Everyone knows the F-35 will be a great tactical bomber, and we’ll use that capability repeatedly.

You need to stop taking everything Rogoway says as literal facts. Because he doesn’t always know what he’s talking about.

I see you read my post in the other thread, and didn’t quite understand what I was talking about.

Yep. Language is not architecture. Language *does* require you to hire people fluent (or at least conversational) in it. Even if you write the fixes in C (F-35 uses some C version) you still need to be able to read the Ada so you know what the program is doing.

Did you even read your own article?:

FYI, the main reason why the F-22 is banned from export is the software. Put simply, it has zero security. You can dump the whole system simply by walking up and plugging a laptop into it (it uses FireWire, so cables are cheap and plentiful) and running the right commands. It’s inherently permissive, because it was…

The main reason they’re going to replace the radar: it and the ECM suite interfere with each other. That’s right, when the B-1 turns on the jammer, it jams itself. It’s been a known issue since the type entered service.

And you can still get 2 stealthy F-16s for the price of 1 F-22.

The reason why we don’t have more F-22s is because (in 2016 dollars) they still cost over $200 million fucking dollars a pop AFTER all economies of scale were realized and R&D costs were paid off. And that’s also without all of the mods we added after production shut down.

“But it’s also useful to remember Rubio’s stances on things like abortion, given that he has a very, very real chance of becoming the nomine”

There could be as many as 5 designs. They’re aiming for some commonality in engines and systems, but that’s about it.

The program you’re looking for is Future Vertical Lift. It’s a 3 part program to replace the Blackhwak (pt 1, utility), Apache and Kiowa (pt 2, attack) and the Chinook (3, heqvy). It’s early in the program, but some of the candidates for the utility vehicle are the offshoots of the Sikorsky Raider and the Bell V-280…

Tyler was fucking wrong about that. He can pull facts alright, but putting them into proper context? Wrong more often than he is right. Usually because he he some axe to grind about some bigger issue. It blinds him to simpler truths.

I think I get it. Thanks.

Your comment confuses me...please elaborate. Because this is a public website, and posting your writing to it is accepting that it will become part of the public discourse (as good and bad as that can be). Debating what rape is seems like a likely outcome.e to the headline and story. I wonder if getting us to talk…

Umm...no. Countries around the world realize that what you get is somewhat proportional to what you’re willing to spend. That’s why the F-35 has a dozen countries lined up for shiny new pointy jets and the S-3 has *maybe* one, but only for used models.