9/4 Rather than building midget useless weak carriers that require
vertical take off planes (which have worse performance than
non-vertical take off planes), why don't the Brits just build a
bigger carrier?
\_ JSF
\_ Because they can't afford one and putting all your eggs in one
basket is both militarily stupid and inflexible.
\_ The British have the right idea. Vertical takeoff craft which
are computer-piloted.... That's the way to go.
\_ Until the FoF system tags a 747 landing at O'Hare as an
incoming enemy bomber and kills a few hundred people. The day
they can take the people out of wars is the beginning of a
perpetual war which won't end until all industrial bases are
destroyed on one side or someone uses WMD on a large scale.
\_ It's IFF
\_ Friend or Foe, thanks.
\_ Watched T3, did you?
\_ Yes, but you apparently didn't. That wasn't the message
in T3 at all.
\_ it worked in the Falklands. Also, the U.S. marines use Harriers
too. Nod to the can't afford comment above.
\_ USMC has a pretty good reason for using Harriers. As an
expeditionary force, they can't rely on the existence of
proper runways everywhere.
\_ worked damned well in the Falklands actually. OP, the Brits
don't have any current concerns about taking on the USAF. They
don't need a USAF quality AF. They just need enough to pretend
to be a world power and smash second world Argentina quality
nations every so often or back us up here and there for good PR. |
http://csua.com/feed/