Gunrunner

@2skicomrade, indeed, on paper NATO has a massive advantage over Russia, in reality taking every member into account NATO's forces readiness is about about half what it ever was during the Cold War and there's so much political divisions and lack of will that it is mostly toothless and very unlikely that any single member, let alone the alliance as a whole, ends up taking aggressive action against anyone without a conflict pre-existing (the two exceptions are the US and Turkey, and even then, for the US the political situation is more complicated than Russia seems to figure). However, since the US alone are enough to tackle Russia as it currently stands, that point is relatively moot anyway. I'm not entirely sure of how Russia is treated in the US these days but in parts of the EU I know, the alarmism is due less to Russia's military capabilities than attitude, we have EU members who not long ago were part of the USSR or its sphere of influence and they see recent Russian attitude as worrying, they are happy as they are and don't ever want to be pulled back into Russia's sphere of influence and in their eyes it's what Russia actually wants. Worse, we have pro-Russian intellectuals, even in France and Britain, who will nowadays argue that Putin is the best thing that happened to Russia, that he put a stop to the country's pillage by "Jewish oligarchs" (yes, they often make sure to point that those oligarchs are supposedly Jews, as if that were significant for anything else than their underlying anti-semitism), that despite a few suspicious death of journalists and political opponents, the average Russian has never been freer or richer (and maybe he built Autobahns too) and that Ukraine is historically part of Russia therefore it's perfectly OK for them to take it again (that sort of argument makes Poland and Baltic states fairly nervous usually).

Except supposedly the Cold War is over but apparently someone forgot to forward the memo to Putin.

On the SEAD mission, indeed, but in the future scenario sans-F-16 that's how the thing was sold when the limited stealth of the F-35 was questioned a few years ago, the story then was that it didn't matter because early SEAD would be the F-22's role. Doesn't that sound familiar ? And personally I think the F-35 would be a much better SEAD platform because its signal processing is both superior and what it can do with it much more subtle. What I question is the shifting official and officious narratives to justify the perceived shortcomings of the program, not the actual ability of the F-35 to perform the mission (well, that in turn makes me question the actual plane abilities, why lie and change stories if the plane actually delivers ?) On AWACS, I can understand it, but even with a fully networked force it will leave you with greater gaps in your coverage than AWACS, unless of course that's what the X-37 is for, but otherwise you are taking the risk of a spotty coverage, easily disrupted, or forcing you to put more planes in the air just to compensate the fact that you don't have a dedicated asset. Of course that means you don't have a single point of failure, but that also means you get easily degraded coverage which might endanger the whole operation (one aborted mission reduces your coverage in turn potentially endangering other missions and so on). It also poses the problem of operating costs in low-intensity contexts, I'm quite sure it's less costly to operate an AWACS than a number of fighters over the same time for the same coverage if there's little risk. So can the F-22 or F-35 act as "mini-AWACS" or as part of a network providing a large area coverage in the absence of a dedicated asset ? Certainly. Can they replace it or do as good a job ? No. On the engine front keep in mind that everything points toward the engine development being way, way behind schedule both in the software and manufacturing front, there is probably a lot of room for improvement especially once the F-35B reaches IOC and more time can be spent on optimizing engine software for the F-35A and F-35C. So yes, on paper it will still be underpowered but still, we're not seeing what the engine really is capable of yet.

Remember when we asked the question "Do dogfights matter in the age of air-to-air missiles ?" or "Do fighters matter in the age of missiles ?" ? Remember how that panned out ? Besides, manoeuvrability and acceleration are not only for dogfights. Hubris never ends up well. Wait, what ? Indeed, the F-35 is so superior to the F-22 that we need four times as much planes to perform the same mission ! War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength much ? Seriously, the thing has been sold for years as follow : - F-22 for early stage SEAD and HVT missions (replacing the F-117 and in part the B-2) and air superiority. - F-35 for everything else. And now they're telling us that the F-35 is actually the one performing early SEAD, even though it will take four times as much planes to obtain the same result ??? WTF (yeah, I know it's probably a typo, at least I hope so, otherwise they're implying they're ready to risk four times as much lives than strictly necessary). Either there were radical changes to the F-35 requirements making it's export rather puzzling (remember, the F-22 couldn't be exported because it was oh so secret and stealthy, couldn't let it fall into the wrong hands, and the F-35 was supposed to be "worse" enough that it could be exported, and now, not only is it much more advanced system-wise, but also stealth-wise ?) or this is starting to sound like grade A bullshit. Yes sure, because the point of the AWACS is not at all the great big long range radars covering 360° with almost the same range, right ? See, that's the kind of BS that makes me critical of the program, arrogant, short-sighted astro-turfing, diminishing the importance of weaknesses while over-inflating the advantages. Yes, sure, their vision of future warfare is glorious and might end up working, but sacrificing the rest of operational capabilities on the altar of a vision reeks of a time when we foresaw a future where everything was missiles and guns - even fighters themselves - were a thing of the past, pushing many to design around that idea sacrificing traditional capabilities, scrapping programs or even their whole industry because of a vision that never survived the first contact with reality. Sure, 50 years later the money spent following that vision paid up, and yet we still have fighters, most of them with guns. Nearly a trillion dollar would seem a high price to pay for potential benefits decades down the road.

And yet they've repeatedly hyped it as second only to the F-22 in air combat, they used every trick in the book to sell it to countries in the market for a primarily air asset. By the way, the same thing happened with the A-10, at first they claimed that it could and will replace the A-10, that it will be as good, if not better in the CAS role... now it was never meant to replace it, the A-10 won't be replaced so stop worrying about survivability to ground fire, it won't expose itself, stop worrying about loiter time, it won't be used that way, stop worrying about payload, it won't need payload the way it will be used, yada yada... if this kind of mission profile had been enough to "replace" the A-10, then the F-16 would have done it long ago. I think a lot of the antipathy toward the F-35 stems from the over-the-top and entirely removed from the realities of the program's progress and capabilities astro-turfing that's been going on for nearly a decade now, had it not been sold as some sort of perfect master-of-all-trades wonder weapon, maybe it wouldn't have as many detractors, even considering the delays and cost overruns.

*cough* BS *cough* 1) With or without the F-35 is as (in)apt at performing ACM and 2) passive stealth is already obsolescent, especially against high-tech opponents, and the RCS gains are obtained either at the cost of maintainability or ability to operate in harsh conditions. From reading the report a few things jump at me : 1) The helmet problem is concerning, it makes the whole helmet concept pointless, actually transforming what was meant as an advantage into a disadvantage. It's strange that with more than a hundred built, at no point in the program such ergonomics problem was identified. 2) The F-35 indeed appears to be "a dog", however I might have missed it but nowhere does the report state the software revisions used on that plane, it was an early airframe without all systems, it's quite possible that it used older software as well, meaning that engine and flight controls were still sub-optimal and not representative of the current state of the F-35 performance, so I wouldn't base my judgement on that report alone, other planes have demonstrated how much of a difference software can make, especially early in development (and for the F-35 it's still early, as idiotic as it sounds for a 23 years old program). Damn, you know things have gone awry when I actually end up defending the silly thing...

When a US military program's best advocate is Russian, you know you've done goofed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZbqkxjAK8E).

Indeed, it's been part of the planned growth of the F-35 for years now, the current design has electrical generation compatible with the targets set for fighter-borne lasers at the time, with enough room for capacitors to make it reasonnably usable, how that will pan out is another story entirely, especially considering the different directions laser weapons are going (using them as counter-measure/self-defence against missiles is now deemed technically achievable in a fighter-borne format in a time frame compatible with the F-35 MLU). Strangely, laser weaponry is neither the riskiest nor the most expensive part of the F-35 program.

Wait until they add the laser. :-)

There's so much BS thrown around on the topic of the F-35 - on both sides of the fence - that it has become extremely difficult to come across any reasonable and reliable data, qualitative or quantitative about the project. By the way, any news on the development of the Cuda missile ? I think it was around the 2010-2012 time frame an Air Force general was running his mouth about the F-35 secret weapon, that we'd seen nothing yet and other garbage to distract from some new problems and delays and LM ended up "leaking" their new missile. AFAIR it was supposed to be a very compact radar guided missile, about half the size of an AMRAAM because it was designed as a kinetic impactor and usable against air and ground targets, the F-35 was supposed to have up to 12 of these missiles internally. Did that ever leave the drawing board or was it some more astro-turfing ? Anything I find is always a re-hash of the initial informations or people wondering where that went... @Tirak, I would take modern dictionaries with a grain of salt, even the most serious ones have now accepted the popular yet incorrect usages of "literally" (in the sense of virtually or figuratively). Once you ascribe to a word both a very precise meaning and its exact opposite you have, quite literally, rendered it meaningless. Regardless, alacrity, as far as I'm aware, doesn't apply to inanimate objects, of course you can insist that the F-35 is a conscious entity, but we'd be stepping out of semantics and deep into psychiatry.

@Derk, I'm not saying the F-35 should be cancelled or even that countries relying on it should look for alternatives, it's way, way too late in the game for anyone for that to even be an option. However, just because it's your only choice doesn't in any way mean it hasn't been a bad one. Acknowledging the fact that you're stuck with it is one thing, painting it as a wonder weapon that is the best choice for you even though it's patently false is another (once again, the F-35 mostly makes sense for the US, not so much for Netherlands, but it's too late, and it's needed, yesterday). @JM, Russia/China because the F-35 really outclasses other options when 4 conditions are met a) you face an opponent with modern air assets, b) you face an opponent with pilots with a modicum of training and reasonable flight hours, c) you face an opponent with modern early warning and finally d) you face an opponent with a modern, multi-layered SAM network. Very few countries, even amongst the West, meet all these conditions... drop even one of these conditions and most modern planes will do provided careful planning and by accepting higher potential losses (but since you'd be engaging more planes, the loss percentage might end up lower or equal). Why a conflict longer than a week ? Because in the context above (High-Intensity, High-Tech conflict), the only F-35 user I see able and willing to conduct a first strike are Israel (but their opponents mostly fail to qualify), Turkey (again, their opponents are lacking) or the US... Of course you might disagree with my assessment of the conditions making the F-35 absolutely indispensable, widening the range of potential conflicts that only it can adequately fight and everything changes, however, in my view, it's the only case, all others are a case of engaging more assets and accepting potentially higher losses, which can be seen as cold but I doubt anyone here sees war as a clean, gentlemanly game. As I said to Derk, I'm not even advocating replacing the F-35, it's too late now, that doesn't mean I have to drink the Kool-Aid and sing Kumbaya when the program has been a disaster management wise and some countries buying it will end up with a plane that will leave them with a crippled force (even though it will be better than the force they currently have, those facts are not mutually exclusive). @MB, I think Boyd would have hated the F-35 with a passion, everything from the requirement to the management, procurement and above all the costs has been what he hated the most, but that's beside the point... I think that for everyone's benefit a little historical refresher is needed to have some perspective on what the F-35 program actually is in relation to other programs. Rafale, a 80's design to answer a 70's requirement, with RCS management features tacked on, using systems ranging from the 90's to now. Started as a Cold War multi-role design, ended as a Post-Cold War evolutionary omni-role one. Typhoon, a 80's design to answer a 70's requirement, with RCS management features tacked on, using systems ranging from the 80's to now. Started as a Cold War air superiority design, ended as a Post-Cold War evolutionary air superiority one (with a multi-role capacity planned). Gripen, a 80's design to answer a 80's requirement, with RCS management features almost accidental, using system ranging from the 80's to 00's. Started as a Cold War multi-role design, ended as a Post-Cold War evolutionary omni-role one. F-22, a 80's design updated in the 90's to answer a 80's requirement, with 2nd generation stealth features, using systems ranging from the 80's to 00's. Started as a Cold War air superiority design, ended as a Post-Cold War evolutionary multi-role one. F-35, a 90's design to answer a 90's requirement, with 3rd generation stealth features, using systems ranging from the 00's to now. Started as a Post-Cold War strike fighter design, ended as a Post-Cold War revolutionary multi-role one. Notice, the F-35 is the ONLY design not originating from the Cold War, it's the only one actually meant to be "revolutionary". The problem with the F-35 is that it's not even cutting edge, it's bleeding edge, on almost every aspect of the project (even the gun and its ammo are new developments), explaining the delays, recurring problems, the long teething period and the ridiculous costs, worse, it's managed in such a way that they are built even before problems are fixed, which might end up disastrously (and nearly did at some points), anything else, including the F-22 have been rather timid, conservative affairs. This explains, and fully justifies, the delays and costs, one can even argue that those costs will be recouped with the next project, all the hard R&D being done on the F-35. And in part, that's true but then... why plan building nearly 2000 of a high risk plane that is in essence a prototype, a tech demo, knowing full well that the next one will be at least as good and cost much, much less ? Why build them while you are still solving basic design problems ? Does that mean that the F-35 is at least half a generation ahead of the rest in terms of sophistication ? Indeed. Does that mean that every dollar spend on that beast fully translates into capabilities increase ? Nope, due to the law of diminishing returns, especially for projects of that scale and taking so many risks at once, every bit of increased capability comes at a very high price, recouped in the next design hopefully. Does that translate in a huge increase in capability ? Not really, the increase in capability is, barring any surprise like the "secret weapon" sometime mentioned, only marginally superior to what a new evolutionary design would have been. And now let me answer my question for you, why does the US intend to buy so many of the damn things and pushed allies to buy it too, fully knowing it's not the kind of project meant to be mass produced and that "the next one" would offer everything it can, and more, for less money ? Because for political reasons they believed, or knew, that Congress would never approve another program so close after that one (and the F-22, and the A-12 and so many other mismanaged projects) so they were left with two choices 1) play it safe and take the risk of seeing other countries developing better aircrafts at some point or 2) bet the farm on it, if it works they'll end up with a 10 years head start, at the risk of losing everything (failed program with no backup or budget/time to have one) and/or bankrupting themselves (stretching the budget to the point other items suffer) in the process. Obviously that's not the choice I would have made and I can only deplore the involvement of allies in such a dangerous gamble, it's one thing to play with your own money and security, it's another to do so with someone else's.

Indeed, individually, it's not a bad aircraft, especially once all quirks will be worked out, however the amount of political manipulation and downright corruption around its development and sale are annoying and some countries might end up with a deal that will make the F-104 deals look good, the F-104 wasn't very good for what they intended, but at least it was cheap(-ish) and could be procured in quantity... Oh well, what's done is done, and at least my taxes won't be paying it.

And you are right, up to a point; There is a threshold where your force is spread so thin and costs so much to operate it becomes, for all intent and purpose, practically useless, it's no longer a fighting force but a political force, a paper military asset, and quite a few nations considering their next generation fighters (and I'm not talking only of the F-35 here, quite a few nations considering cheaper alternatives are making the same mistake) are making the grave assumption that they can both control their budget and get a gold plated plane. Is the F-35 a geo-strategic deterrent ? No more than the F-16 was in his prime, in other words, not at all. As a geo-political asset planes are not a deterrent, they only are a tool to make your opponent spend more money (see the ridiculous competition between Greece and Turkey when it comes to air forces). It's a game of who can spend the most money, or who will do it the most efficiently. You have to consider that it's not a plane, as an individual component, that performs a job (or acts as a deterrent), it's the whole package, it's the actual number of planes available, how available they are, how well trained your pilots are and how willing you are to risk both planes and pilots by engaging them in operations. The costlier and fewer your planes the less available they are, the less trained your pilots and the less willing to lose them you are, making them, past a certain point, de facto useless. Yes, it has to be Russia or China, they are the only ones (outside of the US) with enough advanced hardware and resources to sustain a high intensity conflict for more than a week (well, maybe India and Israel, by a few days, can join that club too, Turkey might be getting close, beyond that, either they lack the equipment or the logistical backbone to last, France and UK included). My real concern is for countries planning to operate less than 80 F-35 as their sole combat asset (Netherlands and Norway); It seems to me to be a potentially very costly gamble to make. I'm also worrying for countries currently operating the Typhoon and originally planning to rely on it longer or as a multi-role asset and now more or less forced to shift that burden on the F-35 (Italy and UK). For Australia, Israel, Turkey and the US I have no worry and Japan is used to operate under-sized and over-budget so it's only par for the course for them. Finally, funny thing, since you cited Gen. Hostage and are defending the idea of the F-35 as an air superiority asset for Norway : "If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22." Gen. Michael Hostage, Jan. 27 2014

Governments are elected to 1) enact the will of the citizenship 2) act in the best interest of the nation, they are not supposed to be elected despots as you are suggesting, but that's another debate and I'll grant that in effect, you are right. Concerning the UK, well, their intended order even now is still large enough to be coherent and considering the Typhoon might have a short life and will certainly not end up as a multi-role mainstay of the RAF, there is a need for something and the F-35 is their best bet in term of capacity and delivery schedule (the Gripen isn't "good" enough and the Rafale would have an hilarious release schedule, entering service much later than the F-35 will, and it would create a host of other problems). Numerical superiority was only part of the problem but let's concentrate on it for a moment, one could simplify things by categorizing operations performed by an Air Force in three categories : 1- Peacetime operations, air policing, training and eventually peacekeeping operations abroad. 2- Dirty little wars abroad, low intensity, low tech conflicts, mostly fought alone, even in a coalition, no overwhelming threats, but operating conditions tax the men and aircraft, even at low sortie rate the planes are suffering, availability and endurance are important. 3- World War III, high intensity, high tech, fought as part of a coalition, high level of forces integration, high threats, attrition rate a more pressing problem than availability and maintenance. Let's compare how a small, high tech, high costs force (from now on designated as F-35) fares against a larger, mid tech, mid costs force (from now on designated as F-16) in each case (understand that it would be the exact same thing with any other aircraft close in peacetime capacities but with large cost differences) : 1- Both forces perform either equally, at a higher cost for the F-35, with the F-35 aging faster as the same number of flight hours is shared over less planes, with the F-35 costs rising faster or the F-35 performs worse, at equivalent cost, by decreasing the flight hours, diminishing the ability to protect the air space and lowering the training of pilots and maintenance crews. 2- Considering that deployment is costlier and has greater cost implications on long term for the F-35 than for the F-16, the F-35 will either be deployed less, or create much higher costs, making such deployment either impractical or costly with greater implications for a F-35 force than a F-16 one (remember, F-35 and F-16 are shorthand for something else, otherwise that statement is utter BS). 3- The higher survivability of the F-35 compensates the inferior number and makes the F-35 actually cheaper to operate than the F-16. So, basically, you want a plane that is equal or inferior to lower cost alternatives for the tasks you actually need it for, on the off chance that a scenario no-one can win on a strategic level ever comes true, provided you don't bankrupt yourselves procuring those wonder-weapons... riiiiiiight, makes as much sense as nuclear deterrent (well, at least nuclear power makes sense on a political level)...

MigBuster, let's use a reductio ad absurdum approach and an historical analogy, yes, the qualitative approach is great but not at the cost of efficiency through simple number. You can get the best of the best airplane, but if its cost means you only can buy one, it doesn't matter, it's useless... ask Germany how their top of the line tanks fared against the definitely mediocre but numerically superior Shermans on a strategic level. It doesn't matter if tactically you have the best hardware in the world, if by doing so you are ensuring that you don't have enough of them to secure you strategic goals, you have already lost. And once again, it's not a problem for the US, it will be used as one asset among many, in the capacity for which it was designed and in quantities and with a budget that allow it to be used efficiently, if not necessarily cost-efficiently. And no, it's not up to governments, the governments' money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from tax payers and if I were a Norwegian tax payer I'd worry seeing my money go into buying a plane that is both inadequate to the task and overkill, at a cost higher than what we currently have for inferior capacity (through no fault of the plane itself, as explained previously, but because of the force reduction below a certain threshold due to the individual acquisition and operating costs). And lastly, once more... Do the US really intend to fight World War III against Russia or China, and does it think that it can/will be won militarily ? If the answer is yes, then Russia's not the only country full of delusional idiots nostalgic of the Cold War. If the answer is no, then what do you need the F-35 for ? (You know, a plane that can't sit too long in the sun, that doesn't like sand very much, that hates - at least at the moment - rudimentary storage, operation and maintenance... hey, at least it can to a certain extent stay out in the rain, that's got to be an advantage over the F-22 right ?)

You are not understanding me... For air defence, as an individual plane, the F-35 is obviously superior to the F-16 not as a whole but for a few points : - Newer electronics (as noted for air support) - Much, much better ergonomics - More responsive flight controls (how it compares to a Rafale, often used as a benchmark too in that respect, is unknown) - More stealthy, of course, but under fairly limited conditions and against unsophisticated detection networks - Better acceleration However it is equal in most other aspects and potentially lacking in others - compared to the F-16 - including : - Inferior or equal manoeuvrability, however it seems to require a "lesser" pilot to get the best out of it compared to the F-16, so it's a difficult point to judge in real operations (and it may help negate the effect of lower flight hours due to budgetary constraints) - Lower top speed (but that's not a huge drawback, especially for countries other than the US) - Equal payload at the cost of drag and stealth or much lower payload (not a huge problem but that means that the trick for which you are ready to pay a premium is not really that useful) Anyway, that wasn't my point... My point was about the cost of the damn thing... Take Norway, at the current full production cost of the F-35 it's projected that they can afford to replace their F-16 at a rate of 2 F-35 per 3 F-16 at best. Even if we end up agreeing that a F-35 is "worth" 1.5 F-16 MLU we still have a problem because attrition becomes more and more crippling, especially at forces the size of most projected non-US operators (Norway would be at best 50 F-35). You don't get it, let's see, you have 75 F-16 MLU, for some reason you crash one, from 100% you are down to 98.67% capacity and you write off a plane that did cost you (in 1998 dollars) about $20M... now crash one of your 50 F-35, you are down to 98% at a cost of (in 1998 dollars) about $50M. You crash 5 over the life of the program, a F-16 force is down to 93.33% at a cost of $100M, a F-35 force is down to 90% at a cost of $250M. Attrition is much much more costly both in financial and fighting capacity terms. Worse, as attrition takes its toll, for the same number of flight hours for your force, you are wearing down planes faster, increasing your operating costs and/or decreasing your flight hours and readiness. Now take operating costs, for most planes it's a J curve, it starts at a point at the "birth" of a plane, then as spares get cheaper and maintenance crews get better the costs decrease and as time goes on and spares become scarce, the plane ages requiring more and more maintenance to keep in the air, the costs rise again, well above the early operating costs, the F-16 has entered that phase some time ago for most operators. In favour of the F-35, one can say that its at the start of the curve, therefore it's bound to decrease. On the other hand, they are already comparable to the current costs of the F-16, meaning that it will probably, even in the best conditions, cost more than the F-16 ever did and will cost a lot more years down the road. That in turn will affect the budget of Air Force employing it, meaning that they will probably fly less, to reduce yearly operating costs and diminish attrition, but in turn it will mean less training for both pilots and maintenance crews, meaning inferior capacity and availability. The F-35 is perfect if you don't have to worry about budget, but once you factor it... it doesn't make sense for anyone outside the US.

That it is a PR stunt doesn't negate the fact that in a contested air space (be it from SAMs or other fighters), the F-35 will of course be better than older planes with older systems (even when recently upgraded), what is in question is how (cost-)efficient it will be at the same task in uncontested airspace or in low-intensity conflicts. Yes, the F-35 would be better to provide air support to troops in the Ukrainian plains while under the threat of Russian SAM systems and upgraded MiGs and Sukhois... But is it still the best or most cost effective solution for providing air support in Mali, or whatever dirty little war is next on the agenda ? Is the F-35 really a good choice for nations planning to use it primarily for air defence ? Yep, as a tactical dirt mover for World War III, I would support the F-35 100%, but as an asset for an increasing number of low-intensity conflicts presenting little survivability problems, low-value targets only and harsh environments and maintenance-intensive situations, how are you going to justify the cost ? As an air superiority asset it will all depend on the real acquisition and operating costs, it's a bit too early but as it stands now, the F-35 seems to offer less capacity than the F-16 for the same cost, or the same capacity at higher cost... That might change favourably as production ramps up and maintenance procedures get better though, so let's not write it off entirely yet. The head-scratcher is that unless the US really intend on fighting World War III against Russia/China and believe they have a chance of winning - or the whole program is a job program scam - the F-35 makes little military or economic sense... The F-22 had the excuse of being born while the Cold War was still on (and still makes more sense now that the F-35), but by the time the JSF program took shape it was obvious how dumb the idea was, and yet the thing evolved further and further into a program utterly inadequate to the needs and budget of the US Air Force and the nations participating to the program (unless it's all about the bragging rights of having a "next-generation" plane before anyone else, even though it isn't cost-effective or doesn't really suit your needs). And let's be frank, the F-35 suffers from a serious image deficit, it's not a beautiful plane, it's not elegant and certainly not graceful (especially the B and C) and yet it fails to be truly ugly and bizarre denying him what becomes, for other planes, character... for plane watchers the F-35 is just post-modern meh... add to that the uninspired and uninspiring "Lightning II" nickname, evoking two legendary planes, one a long-range/escort fighter, the other a weird, wonderful, quirky and idiosyncratic to the point of uselessness interceptor but strapping it to a mud mover...

Just in case, because I saw no one mentioning it, all three titles have replay functionalities (in Red Dragon it can be found in your profile), they automatically record your game and you can review it later from either side, or as a neutral observer, you can even share the replay files. It's a great tool to enhance your skills and understanding. Be aware though that it makes fights against the AI look somewhat weird, as you realize that you usually are severely outnumbered and outmanoeuvred (yet somehow manage to win).

Nah, Fallout without turn-by-turn combat, wicked humour and isometric view never was Fallout, be it 3, New Vegas... From what I've seen 4 will still be an Elder Scrolls game in a Fallout setting rather than a true Fallout game, just another great looking piece of crap... Mass Effect : Andromeda, it will push even further the changes effected throughout the original series, less RPG, more shooting game, poorer but more dramatic writing; Count me out, they lost me at ME3, defending their poor writing then insulting us by deliberately not listening and giving us a crappy happy ending DLC rather than a fitting, well-written end to the series.

33Lima, if you plan on being a mostly skirmish player (non-campaign solo games against AI) and continue playing it as a wargame rather than a RTS I recommend Red Dragon as it introduces variable speed, allowing you to slow the game down when things get hairy (the AI player can micro-manage whole divisions, but I found you can at best manage a regiment, basically sacrificing the units you are not micro-managing, unless you use the variable speed to pass your orders around the map that is). I just wish you could import EE and ALB european style maps into Red Dragon (and a few hundred more naval units).

But where did they get them ? It would be even weirder that the Lebanese hypothesis, unless it's the Illustrator on drugs one which proves correct.

Yes, but the engine is clearly not from a IIIC, and it can neither be a CJ nor a CZ, hence I assumed illustrator error/laziness...

Unlikely, Iraq never bought any Mirage III or 5, at least directly and that I know of. We never sold them to Iran either and I don't see any other Arab Sunni country giving them to Iran... however... we sold Mirage IIIEL (they have all the external features of that profile) to Lebanon, and considering this country's relations with Syria and in turn Syria's relations with Iran, it's not entirely impossible that some Mirage IIIEL might have ended in Iran's hands... My research so far to validate that idea : - From 1968 Lebanon received 10 Mirage IIIEL and 2 Mirage IIIBL - The only recorded loss I found is of a Mirage IIIBL (with a possible EL loss in 1973 but unconfirmed) - The whole fleet was grounded for budgetary/political reasons in the late 70's and later put in storage - Around that timeframe Dassault considered the fleet to be in good shape with no cannibalization - In the late 90's 9 Mirage IIIEL were sold to Pakistan (it isn't clear whether the BL was part of the deal) - At some point the LAF apparently changed the planes serial numbers, making it harder to track That leaves 1, possibly 2, planes unaccounted for, of which at least one is a EL, the other one being either a EL or a BL.

From discussions with engineers : - Engineers with FMS knowledge believe their network is properly isolated from the IFE network. - Engineers with FMS knowledge seem conflicted over what he meant by "reprogrammed" but they seem to think he has misconceptions about how their software work (which is their polite way to say he seems clueless on the topic). - None of them exclude that in retrofits or to shave off weight and costs both networks might not be air-gaped as they should be but they have no personal knowledge of such case and consider it criminal negligence if it ever happened. - It's scary how most engineers have limited knowledge outside of the particular part of a subsystem they work on. When read properly Chris Roberts claims are as follows : - He did access the entertainment network of multiple planes, sniffed around the network and found flaws. - He has working knowledge of flight control networks and engine control software... in a virtual machine. (Which is weird in itself as it begs the question, where did he get a FMS virtual machine or source code ?) - He believes both network aren't properly secured and air-gaped. - He never claimed to have actually bridged the gap between the two systems or accessed the flight control network in flight. My take : - Chris Roberts presented theoretical possibilities in words that could be taken as actual events out of self-aggrandizing habit (He once claimed to have taken control of the environmental control of the ISS and raised the onboard temperature). - The FBI was perfectly aware of it but thought it was a good opportunity to justify their budget, security theatre and some legislation. - The media saw a perfect opportunity to prey on the public's fear to sell more ads. - Chris Roberts is trying to get his own TV show and pull a Walter O'Brien... - Chris Roberts, as a security expert, is bleeding credibility fast, other researchers and specialists in the field are combing through his previous work and claims and tearing him apart, he apparently committed professional suicide.

Wait, 4 Battle-class ? AFAIR there only were two involved in Korea, besides the majority of Commonwealth destroyers were C-class (mostly from the RN and we, mostly, have them), then Tribal-class (the RCN ones, we don't have proper ones) and only then the two Battle-class RAN destroyers, followed by a V-class or River-class destroyer here and there. The majority of Sydney's escorts were Tribal-class and American destroyers, the two Battle-class destroyers only escorted Sydney during a few of its patrols, the rest of the time they were assigned to RN carriers escort, shore bombardment or islands protection. So yes, the Sydney has almost no escort, not because we are missing the Battle-class but because we are missing the Tribal-class. This was a message from the Tribal-class Appreciation Society... ahem...