New fighter jet to bolster Russian air force, and India

[MadBurgerMaker]

I see that after building our retarded gigantic must-stay-at-sea-until-it-rusts-out-and-sinks triple flight deck ICBM carrying catamaran supercarrier we'll still be using F-18s, what appear to be Harriers, and Sea Kings.  Awesome.

Why does it have non-ciws guns that will be shooting across the catamaran flight decks?  Why does it have non-ciws guns at all?  Shit, why does it have ciws guns?

Goddammit, who made this?

[Ed Anger]

I see that after building our retarded gigantic must-stay-at-sea-until-it-rusts-out-and-sinks triple flight deck ICBM carrying catamaran supercarrier we'll still be using F-18s, what appear to be Harriers, and Sea Kings.  Awesome.

Why does it have non-ciws guns that will be shooting across the catamaran flight decks?  Why does it have non-ciws guns at all?  Shit, why does it have ciws guns?

Goddammit, who made this?

[Siege]

I see that after building our retarded gigantic must-stay-at-sea-until-it-rusts-out-and-sinks triple flight deck ICBM carrying catamaran supercarrier we'll still be using F-18s, what appear to be Harriers, and Sea Kings.  Awesome.

Why does it have non-ciws guns that will be shooting across the catamaran flight decks?  Why does it have non-ciws guns at all?  Shit, why does it have ciws guns?

Goddammit, who made this?

[Razgovory]

You know, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq I don't think cutting edge stealth bombers and really necessary.  You could probably make do with just using old Skyraiders.

[Neil]

Not only that, but it seems to me that the old 'as fast as possible' warplane paradigm doesn't really hold up anymore.  Mach 6.4?  What's the point?

[Ed Anger]

So the pilots can get back to the Officer's club faster. CHAIR FORCE!

[Ideologue]

Not only that, but it seems to me that the old 'as fast as possible' warplane paradigm doesn't really hold up anymore.  Mach 6.4?  Why?

Because MOAR.

It's the reason why the mainstay of United States Air Force Tactical Air Command is the F-12.

[Neil]

Mind you, it's sort of surprising that it wasn't.  The USAF loves having useless aircraft.  That way, they can't be called upon to do any work for the useful armed services.

[Ideologue]

In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations.  It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.

I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.

[Neil]

In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations.  It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.

I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.

When did the USAF ever end a war or a civilization?

[Ideologue]

In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations.  It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.

I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.

When did the USAF ever end a war or a civilization?

Well, arguably North Korea's.  But, yeah, never, that's my point.  They were never permitted to do the job they were made for, and the job their precursor organization succeeded at so well.  The USAF could have ended the wars with PRChina and Vietnam, but were not allowed to.  The way we fought those wars was retarded--the point of air war is to extend the combat zone across the length and breadth of the enemy's holdings, never permitting any safe place, for neither military nor civilian.  But the PRC had a safe place as big as, well, China.  Linebacker aside, North Viet Nam was relatively secure in the knowledge that the USAF was unlikely to escalate to a sustained terror bombing campaign.  What was the USAF supposed to do with those kind of strictures?  Fuck around, mainly.

Presumably they would have been allowed to actually carry out their role in the event of a major war with Russia.  But they were never allowed to fight a war that it was possible to claim a meaningful victory in.

[Neil]

Even the USAAF's record is questionable though.  Air power isn't a world-beater.  Even in a war where the US enjoyed a decisive air advantage like Afghanistan, the US and their allies were still decisively beaten.

[Siege]

This drawing must be wrong.
I thought quinqerremes had 3 banks of oars with two rowers for the 2 higher banks and one single rower per oar in the lower bank.

[The Minsky Moment]

Oops

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/08/21/Advanced-Russian-fighter-aborts-takeoff/UPI-80631313936868/

I guess it could still function a little against ground targets . . .

[Razgovory]

In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations.  It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.

I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.

It would seem to me the proper course would be change the mission to suit the needs the US rather then focus on a mission that will never come.