Great article! Thanks to Col. Thomas (+1 to TR for the assist).

What is interesting to me, is that if lasers are really the answer as an offensive and defensive weapon system, wouldn’t it just make sense to dismiss the fighter concept altogether? seems like the ideal concept would be a LRS-B platform (but bigger, not smaller). If IR signature is the primary concern, sounds like…

All great fighters, but I just love how the Rafale looks.

On the bright side, there’s no bow wave (so either the ship is standing still or the hull shape does something there). On the down side, it might roll over in sea state 5.

i wish a moderator would block the Putin-bots on here. This comment (and all of yours) contribute nothing to the discussion. Go away.

Just a minor correction, but can you please refer to the Su-24 as either an attack plane, bomber, or more generically a “warplane.” It is not a fighter aircraft.

Interesting overlap - shows how big the Su is vs. Typhoon

Agree. The Japanese suicide forces (of which kamikaze aircraft were just a fraction) were ramping up for a full fledged defense of the mainland. I think we’re all better off that not more than 1 nation developed nuclear weapons during the war... not to mention fortunate that they haven’t been used in anger since.

Remember that the 2 US bombs were different designs. since there were differing opinions on if either/both would work, and how well. Considering how expensive the Manhattan project had been to date, and that the Japanese had not surrendered after Little Boy, it’s not hard to understand US justification at the time for…

You raise some good points, and some nice niches for the F-35. It’s definitely a better platform than the Harrier it replaces. But think about what your objective really is here. Are you “taking back” the island, or just neutralizing any hostile forces / platforms?

Agree with subs being a bigger threat, but while most of China’s subs are SS, they are not the modern super-silent type. And most of them are only “super-silent” when creeping on batteries at 5 kts. So the chance that all US CVBGs in the region would stumble over a sub in the opening day of a war is ludicrous.…

Looking forward to a piece on USS Ford / Ford class!

the USN is betting that directed energy weapons could indeed be a game changer here. the LaWS system was tested by the USS Ponce in these very waters within the last year.

Great line of posts. Agree with parts of all. The nuke propulsion debate will always be controversial, similar to the "2 engines for a plan program?" debate that we always see. No question that the 1st & 2nd generation nuke plants in carriers, subs, and cruisers were technological marvels, but also hideously…

You can start with "Iowa Class Battleships" by Malcom Muir. Or "Iowa Class Battleships: On Deck" by David Doyle has a book by Otherwise, I agree with the comment that a basic search on B&N or Amazon will turn up a bunch. Zenith Press is a good starting point for military books.

Ah the Il-96. Now we're talking.

So when they deploy overseas, they're flying from land bases, even though they're carrier capable?

It may be semantics, but i disagree here Tyler. The P-8 mission profile is taking the plane looking for enemy subs (ELINT missions excepted). The aircraft in question here is a strategic asset, especially in GBU dropping config that you hypothesized about.

Good post Dodgy. Lots I agree with.

or make non-stealth a/c obsolete since a ground based laser could shoot down all the planes? or are we just assuming that the US will hold a permanent monopoly on this? Sounds like eventually the limiting factor will be line of sight?