Emu

It was the 4th largest military in the world at the time. I don't think the US deliberately played it out like that. Iraq did invade Kuwait if you remember but we're straying into politics here, so I'll stop there.

The other thing is that if you look at the actual IAF quotes in the NDTV article, they don't really say much. The more fantastic assertions made in the article don't have quotation marks around them.

You kill 10 and the other 5 defect.:lol:

If it was a realistic evaluation, the RAF pilot would have just looked at the Su-30 and fired an ASRAAM, so clearly a realistic evaluation wasn't the aim. It's actually very common not to do realistic evaluations, with many restrictions, sometimes guns only, limited missile parameters, one aircraft simulating a foreign threat or a 3rd gen aggressor etc. I've noticed that India has never had an exercise where it's come out and given the same account as the other side afterwards. Same thing happened with the USAF vs IAF clash a few years ago, and with the previous Indrarush in 2011. http://twocircles.net/2011jul24/british_typhoons_whacked_indias_sukhois_joint_exercises.html The NDTV report has also been pulled up on it's Su-30 reliability claims by a photographer too and it doesn't even have a good reputation in India. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=27590&start=30 But to be fair, it isn't just the IAF, it's very rare for both sides to come out of these things and give a compatible account afterwards. I personally can't think of a single example where they have... EVER!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/indian-air-force-beats-raf-120-in-training-exercise--using-russiandesigned-jets-10444466.html http://forces.tv/00317417

That's simply a ridiculous scenario. The US are about as likely to attack themselves as Switzerland.

That's exactly the mistaken belief people keep pushing. They say the Iraqis were useless pilots, but they weren't. Many of them of them were experienced combat pilots with kills under their belt, even aces. And don't forget Iran had F-14s and AIM-54s during that war. The R-40 on the MiG-25s was arguably the longest range AAM of ODS too, since Phoenix wasn't used because of RoE. The Dogfights series also details the Iraqi pilots as employing sophisticated techniques in air combat. Iraq also had the 4th most powerful military in the world at the time, behind only the US, Russia and China. They even had more troops than the coalition but they were just outclassed.

Dear leader took away one bowl of rice per week from families to pay for them.

So, in one version of the future, Skynet won but lost in two?

SM-6 ‘Dual 1′ Defeats Ballistic and Cruise Missiles on a Live Firing Test http://defense-update.com/20150803_sm-6_dual1_test.html The US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and US Navy conducted a successful series of missile intercepts in the Pacific Ocean last week, demonstrating the capability of a newly modified missile interceptor to defeat short range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with the same weapon. The SM-6 was designed from the start to defeat air breathing targets such as cruise missiles, but the recent test was the first to demonstrate the modified variant’s capability to defeat ballistic threat missiles in their final seconds of flight. This ‘Multi-Mission Warfare (MMW) Events’ was the first live fire test of the new SM-6 Dual I missile. During two follow-on flights additional ‘SM-6 Dual I’ missiles were used against targets simulating air launched and surface launched cruise missiles, demonstrating the multi-mission capability of the new SM-6 variant. Part of the U.S. ballistic missile defense, MDA’s Sea-Based Terminal (SBT) program will protect against ballistic threats in their terminal phase of flight using SM-6 missiles integrated into the Aegis Weapon System. Called SM-6 Dual 1, it’s on track to achieve initial operating capability in 2016. The missiles were fired from the AEGIS BMD destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), configured with the latest Aegis Baseline 9.C1 (BMD 5.0 Capability Upgrade) version, and using Standard Missile SM-6 Dual I and SM-2 Block IV interceptor missiles. This test marked the first endo-atmospheric (lower atmosphere) engagement of a Ballistic Missile target to demonstrate a Baseline 9.C1 capability. This capability allows Aegis to engage ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. “This important test campaign not only demonstrated an additional terminal defense layer of the BMDS” said MDA Director Vice Adm. James D. Syring, “it also proved the robustness of the multi-use SM-6 missile on-board a Navy destroyer, further reinforcing the dynamic capability of the Aegis Baseline 9 weapon system.” Syring added. “SM-6 is the only missile in the world that can do both anti-air warfare and ballistic missile defense from sea,” said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, president of Raytheon Missile Systems. “U.S. Navy commanders want both capability and flexibility to meet a wide variety of missions, and that’s exactly what SM-6 offers.” SM-6 delivers a proven over-the-horizon, air defense capability by leveraging the time-tested advantages of the Standard Missile’s airframe and propulsion. The missile incorporates the advanced signal processing and guidance control capabilities from Raytheon’s Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), and employs both active and semi-active guidance modes and advanced fuzing techniques to defeat air breathing and ballistic missile targets.

Longbow Missile Scores 7:1 Against Fast Attack Boat Swarm http://defense-update.com/20150731_longbow.html#.VcCppvlVhLM In a recent test series performed by the US Navy, eight Army/Lockheed martin AGM-114L ‘Longbow Hellfire’ missiles destroyed seven fast naval craft simulating fast attack craft performing swarm attacks, similar to those practiced by the Iranian navy in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. The test was part of the engineering development test of the Surface-to-Surface Missile Module (SSMM), for use on littoral combat ships (LCS). The tests, that took place in June 2015 in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Virginia, evaluated the integration of the vertically-launched AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missile system for the SSMM solution. In this application the missile receives initial target data from a surface search radar or an airborne radar on a helicopter, before launch. After launch, it activates the onboard millimeter wave seeker to find the target. The system has an initial range of eight kilometers and features fire-and-forget and multi-mode capability. The multi-purpose warhead ensures effectiveness against various types of attacking craft. Integration of the “fire-and-forget” Longbow Hellfire missile on LCS represents the next evolution in capability being developed for inclusion in the Increment 3 version of the surface warfare mission package for LCS. When fully integrated and tested, each 24-shot missile module will bring added firepower to complement the LCS’s existing 57mm gun, SEARAM missiles and armed MH-60 Sea Hawk helicopter. The SSMM is expected to be fully integrated and ready to deploy on LCS missions in late 2017 and to increase the lethality of the Navy’s fleet of littoral combat ships. The test scenarios included hitting targets at both maximum and minimum missile ranges. After a stationary target was engaged, subsequent targets, conducting serpentine maneuvers, were engaged. The tests culminated in a three-target “raid” scenario. During this scenario all missiles from a three-shot “ripple fire” response struck their individual targets. The ‘Guided Test Vehicle-1’ test was designed to test the launcher, the missile, and its seeker versus high speed, maneuvering surface targets that represented fast inshore attack craft that are a potential threat to Navy ships worldwide. “This test was very successful and, overall, represents a big step forward in SSMM development for LCS,” said Capt. Casey Moton, LCS Mission Modules program manager. The Navy evaluated several solutions for the SSMM capability, including EO and semi-active laser guided weapons such as the Griffin IIB missile. The Longbow was selected, in part, for its ability to conduct simultaneous attacks on different targets. Another aspect was affordability, as thousands of AGM-114L are already in stock with the US Army. In 2011 the Navy originally favored the Griffin IIB missile developed by Raytheon to be the follow-on missile, after the cancellation of the Non-Line of Sight Launch (N-LOS) missile system originally planned to be the primary surface weapon for the LCS. When the threat of Fast Attack Craft/ Fast Inshore Attack Craft (FAC/FIAC) became acute, primarily in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Western Indian Ocean, the capability of simultaneous target engagement became top priority, positioning the Longbow as the Navy’s favorite weapon for short- range Surface Warfare (SuW). During the mid-June tests off the coast of Virginia, the modified Longbow Hellfire missiles successfully destroyed a series of maneuvering small boat targets. The system "hit" seven of eight targets engaged, with the lone miss attributed to a target issue not related to the missile's capability. The shots were launched from the Navy's research vessel USNS Relentless.

I broadly agree. I've made the same arguments to someone else on another forum. It's interesting though because now that we're thinking about stealth vs stealth rather than stealth vs non-stealth, there is a question over which sensor is best, radar or IRST and the answer may vary depending on the environment and sensor and EW technology levels. I'm not sure terrain masking would work though since many IRST systems have A2G capability too and denser, hotter air causes more surface heating. Weather is certainly a factor though, as is Sun/Moon-masking.

CSBA Trends in Air-To-Air Report TRENDS IN AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE AIR SUPERIORITY 18 Feb 2015 JOHN STILLION CSBA "Executive Summary The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) conducted a historical analysis of trends in air-to-air combat, evaluating air combat operations over the past century. The goal of this study was to assess how advances in sensor, weapon, and communication technologies have changed air combat and the implication of these trends for future combat aircraft designs and operational concepts. The overall conclusion of this study was that over the past few decades, advances in electronic sensors, communications technology, and guided weapons may have fundamentally transformed the nature of air combat. Air-to-air combat developed rapidly after the operational implications of aerial reconnaissance became clear to all the major combatants early in World War I. Early aviators quickly learned the most effective techniques for achieving success in the air domain, and leading aces on both sides codified these techniques into rules and guidelines. The central purpose of these rules was to enable pilots to achieve what modern combat pilots call superior situational awareness (SA). This results when a pilot has a better understanding of the position of all relevant aircraft and their activities in the combat area than an opponent. The ultimate expression of SA is to move into position to attack an opponent without being detected, launch an attack, and escape before other enemies can take counteroffensive action. For about fifty years, pilots relied on the human eye as the primary air-to-air sensor and machine guns and automatic cannon as their primary weapons. The physical limitations of human vision give it a relatively short effective range as an air-to-air sensor of about 2 nautical miles (nm). Aircraft can be seen farther away if the highly sensitive central vision is focused on them, but with central vision limited to a cone roughly 2 degrees wide, pilots searching for opposing aircraft without some sort of cue to limit their search are unlikely to detect them until the less acute peripheral vision is able to resolve them at about 2 nm. The effective range of aerial gunnery grew from about 50 meters (m) during World War I to about 500 m by the early 1960s, but pilots were still required to maneuver their aircraft in a small portion of the sky to ensure hits on an opponent. Against an un-alerted opponent, the attacker simply had to ensure he was within range and had the target “in his sight.” Against an alerted opponent, achieving hits required the attacker not only to be in range, but also to maneuver in the same plane as the target and to allow sufficient lead to account for the distance the target would travel during the bullet’s time of flight. The difficulties and time required in attaining a good firing solution against a maneuvering target, combined with the decrease in SA due to the need to fully concentrate on the target, caused many of the great aces of World War II to shun maneuvering combat as a high-risk, low-payoff activity. Instead, they strove to achieve quick surprise attacks, break away, assess the situation, and attack again if possible. By the mid-1960s, new aerial weapons and sensors appeared in conflicts in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East. The new weapons included both infrared (IR) and radarguided missiles, while the new sensors were largely air-to-air radars. IR missiles allowed attacks within a 30-degree cone behind the target at ranges approaching the 2 nm effective visual search radius. Radar-guided missiles, in theory, allowed attacks from any aspect (front, side, or rear) and beyond visual range (BVR). Air-to-air radars were capable of detecting and tracking targets at 15 nm or more. While the early missiles and radars had serious limitations and were unreliable, they offered substantial advantages over guns and the human eye. CSBA compiled a database of over 1,450 air-to-air victories from multiple conflicts from 1965 to the present. Advances in air-to-air sensor and weapon capabilities are illustrated in Figure 1. Guns were displaced by rear-aspect-only IR missiles, which were in turn replaced by all-aspect missiles, and finally, BVR missiles have come to make up the majority of modern air-to-air engagements. These trends suggest that over the past five decades, advances in radar and other sensor technologies, missile capabilities, and communication technologies allowed pilots to search effectively much larger volumes of sky and engage targets at ever-increasing range. Most modern air combat engagements were initiated before the aircraft were within visual range with a commensurate decrease in the frequency of maneuvering combat. This means that aircrew SA is no longer primarily linked to what they can physically see through the cockpit canopy, but to what they glean from cockpit displays of sensor output and information passed from offboard sources such as nearby friendly aircraft. This transformation may be steadily reducing the utility of some attributes traditionally associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., extreme speed and maneuverability) while increasing the value of attributes not usually associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., sensor and weapon payload as well as range). Aircraft performance attributes essential for success in air-to-air combat during the gun and early missile eras such as high speed, good acceleration, and maneuverability are much less useful now that aircraft can be detected and engaged from dozens of miles away. At the same time, nontraditional attributes such as minimal radar and IR signature; space, payload, and cooling capacity; power for large-aperture long-range sensors; and very-long-range weapons seem to be of increased importance. Both supersonic speed and high maneuverability place significant constraints on aircraft designers and force tradeoffs in aircraft design that limit the incorporation of many of the nontraditional, but increasingly important attributes listed above. The trends identified in this report suggest it may be appropriate to cast a much wider net in the development of future air combat operational concepts, sensors, weapons, and platforms, which would include examining “radical” departures from traditional fighter concepts that rely on enhanced sensor performance, signature control, networks to achieve superior SA, and very-long-range weapons to complete engagements before being detected or tracked by enemy aircraft.... ...Summary and Conclusion Since World War I, the goal of aerial combat has been to shoot down enemy aircraft without being detected and engaged. This accomplishment is usually the result of a pilot having superior SA relative to an opponent. Initially, this required attacking fighter pilots to close to very short range, often 50 m or less, either without being seen by their potential victims or being seen too late to avoid being shot down. Aces in both World Wars stressed the importance of superior SA and of surprising the enemy as well as achieving decisive results without being dragged into “low-payoff/high-risk” maneuvering fights. Many of the great aces of World War II, including Gerd Barkhorn, estimated that 80–90 percent of their victims did not realize they were under attack until after being hit. These estimates were validated by extensive USAF analysis of aerial combat during the Vietnam War. The modern embodiment of these timehonored principles is “First Look, First Shot, First Kill.” By the mid-1960s, AAMs opened the possibility of achieving aerial victories without the need to close within visual range of a potential victim or the necessity of maneuvering into tight gun parameters. U.S. pilots quickly found that missiles designed to attack nonmaneuvering bombers at high altitude were much less effective than anticipated against maneuvering fighters at low altitude. These missile performance limitations were compounded by the lack of trustworthy means of positively identifying enemy aircraft BVR and the unreliability of early missile vacuum tube electronics. Despite these limitations, about 75 percent of U.S. aerial victories in Vietnam were achieved with missiles.77 footnote 77: "This was partly due to the lack of an internal gun in the primary U.S. air superiority fighter of the day, the F-4 Phantom II. Most of the missile kills were achieved with AIM-9 IR missiles." Accordingly, the USAF and Navy set about addressing the challenges of employing missiles against maneuvering targets, improving missile reliability, and, perhaps most importantly, developing robust means of identifying enemy aircraft at long range to fully leverage the ongoing improvements in sensor and weapon range. These efforts bore fruit during Operation Desert Storm, where a large fraction of coalition aerial victories were achieved BVR without a single incidence of fratricide. One of the key enablers of this performance was the advent of AWACS aircraft able to track both friendly and enemy aircraft as well as assist U.S. pilots in identifying their targets and positioning themselves for BVR kills.

http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-official-says-bin-ladens-killed-england-plane-070149954.html

Really we already know it's not going to be a problem, because if it were, killer robots with AI from the future would have travelled back in time to kill Stephen Hawking's mum.

Well the land mine issue grow out of control and started to even include cluster bombs, even sensor-fused ones by the popular definition. I honestly think the more near term threat is the elimination of human beings from the military. If unscrupulous, tyrannical governments no longer need rely on humans to enforce their will, it will let them off the leash completely.

http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/gen-3-high-energy-laser-completes-beam-quality-evaluation-20042920 HEL System Designed for Land, Sea, and Airborne Platforms SAN DIEGO – General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), a leading manufacturer of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) systems, radars, and electro-optic and related mission systems solutions, today announced that an independent measurement team contracted by the U.S. Government has completed beam quality and power measurements of GA-ASI's Gen 3 High Energy Laser System (HEL) using the Joint Technology Office (JTO) Government Diagnostic System (GDS). "These measurements confirm the exceptional beam quality of the Gen 3 HEL, the next-generation leader in electrically-pumped lasers," said Claudio Pereida, executive vice president, Mission Systems, GA-ASI. The new laser represents the third generation of technology originally developed under the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS, Gen 1) program. The Gen 3 Laser employs a number of upgrades resulting in improved beam quality, increased electrical to optical efficiency, and reduced size and weight. The recently certified Gen 3 laser assembly is very compact at only 1.3 x 0.4 x 0.5 meters. The system is powered by a compact Lithium-ion battery supply designed to demonstrate a deployable architecture for tactical platforms. The Gen 3 HEL tested is a unit cell for the Tactical Laser Weapon Module (TLWM) currently under development. Featuring a flexible, deployable architecture, the TLWM is designed for use on land, sea, and airborne platforms and will be available in four versions at the 50, 75, 150, and 300 kilowatt laser output levels. The GDS was employed by an independent measurement team to evaluate the beam quality of the Gen 3 system over a range of operating power and run time. According to JTO's Jack Slater, "The system produced the best beam quality from a high energy laser that we have yet measured with the GDS. We were impressed to see that the beam quality remained constant with increasing output power and run-time." With run time limited only by the magazine depth of the battery system, beam quality was constant throughout the entire run at greater than 30 seconds. These measurements confirm that the exceptional beam quality of this new generation of electrically-pumped lasers is maintained above the 50 kilowatt level. Following this evaluation, the independent team will use the GDS again to conduct beam quality measurements of the GA-ASI HELLADS Demonstrator Laser Weapon System (DLWS). The HELLADS DLWS includes a 150 kilowatt class laser with integrated power and thermal management. About GA-ASI General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., an affiliate of General Atomics, delivers situational awareness by providing remotely piloted aircraft systems, radar, and electro-optic and related mission systems solutions for military and commercial applications worldwide. The company's Aircraft Systems business unit is a leading designer and manufacturer of proven, reliable RPA systems, including Predator® A, Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper®, Gray Eagle®, the new Predator C Avenger®, and Predator XP. It also manufactures a variety of state-of-the-art digital Ground Control Stations (GCS), including the next-generation Advanced Cockpit GCS, and provides pilot training and support services for RPA field operations. The Mission Systems business unit designs, manufactures, and integrates the Lynx® Multi-mode Radar and sophisticated Claw® sensor control and image analysis software into both manned and remotely piloted aircraft. It also focuses on providing integrated sensor payloads and software for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft platforms and develops high energy lasers, electro-optic sensors, and meta-material antennas. For more information, please visit www.ga-asi.com. General Atomics: Third-Gen Electric Laser Weapon Now Ready | Technology content from Aviation Week While fashions in high-energy lasers have changed as technology progresses, from gas to diode and now fiber, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) has stayed its course over more than a decade and believes its third generation of electric laser weapon is ready for prime time. The company has responded to an Office of Naval Research (ONR) solicitation for a 150-kw laser weapon suitable for installation on DDG-51-class destroyers to counter unmanned aircraft and small boats using only ship power and cooling. Under ONR’s Solid-State Laser Technology Maturation program, the weapon is to be demonstrated in 2018 on the USS Paul Foster, a decommissioned Spruance-class destroyer that now serves as the U.S. Navy’s ship-defense test vessel at Port Hueneme in California. GA-ASI has proposed its Gen 3 High-Energy Laser (HEL) system, which recently completed independent beam-quality and power testing for the U.S. government. The Gen 3 system is the third generation of electrically pumped laser using the architecture developed for Darpa’s Hellads program. General Atomics’ third-generation tactical laser weapon module is sized to be carried on its Avenger unmanned aircraft. Credit: Graham Warwick/AW&ST Under development since 2003, the 150-kw Hellads will be tested this summer at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. A smaller, lighter and more efficient Gen 2 system was built and tested in 2010-12 for the Pentagon’s HEL Joint Technology Office (JTO), says Jim Davis, director of laser weapons. Gen 3 has increased electrical-to-optical efficiency, improved beam quality and further reduced size and weight, says GA-ASI. A mockup of the Tactical Laser Weapon Module was displayed for the first time at the Sea-Air-Space show on April 13-15 in Washington. The module includes high-power-density lithium-ion batteries, liquid cooling for the laser and batteries, one or more laser unit cells and optics to clean up and stabilize the beam before it enters the platform-specific beam-director telescope, says Davis. The unit cell is a laser oscillator that produces a single 75-kw beam. Modules can be ganged together to produce a 150- or 300-kw beam. There is no beam-combining, Davis says, as there is in systems that use multiple lower-power fiber lasers. The Pentagon and several other manufacturers have shifted focus to fiber lasers because they are a commercial technology and have higher electrical-to-optical “wallplug” efficiency than diode lasers previously demonstrated at power levels exceeding 100 kw. Mockup shows one 75-kw laser unit cell (gold), although the tactical module has room for two, for a 150-kw laser weapon. Credit: Graham Warwick/AW&ST But the Gen 3’s efficiency is at the level of fiber lasers, Davis says, adding that the company has worked for several years to improve beam quality and achieved “excellent quality” in the latest tests. Adaptive optics adjust the beam to compensate for atmospheric distortion. In the independent unit-cell tests, beam quality was measured over a range of operating power and run time, which is limited only by the “magazine depth” of the battery system. “Beam quality was constant throughout the entire run of greater than 30 sec.,” says GA-ASI. “Fiber lasers are interesting, but it is a matter of maturity,” says Davis. “We are where fiber may be in five years. We have built several versions of this laser over the last 10 years, and we believe [the Gen 3 system] is affordable as is.” In addition to the ONR program, GA-ASI is eyeing the U.S. Army’s Boeing High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD). Live-fire tests of the HEL MD used a 10-kw industrial fiber laser and the Army intends to upgrade the system to a 60-kw Lockheed Martin fiber laser. The next step is a 120-kw laser, planned for testing in the early 2020s, and for which GA-ASI plans to propose the Gen 3 system. The Air Force Research Laboratory, meanwhile, is interested in a podded laser weapon, although there is no formal program yet. Davis says the Gen 3’s size enables an airborne laser module in the 150-kw range to be carried by GA-ASI’s Avenger unmanned aircraft. The UAV has sufficient onboard power to recharge the module’s batteries in flight. “That’s the utility; you don’t need to go back to reload,” Davis says.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/dunford-mulls-f-35b-ioc-decision-4-bs-take-out-9-attackers/ Dunford Mulls F-35B IOC Decision; 4 Bs Take Out 9 Attackers By COLIN CLARK on July 27, 2015 at 6:34 PM Marines perform first F-35B vertical take-off, landing at Eglin WASHINGTON: During the Marine’s recent operational readiness test of the F-35B, four of the Marine aircraft went up against nine enemy aircraft. “It went very poorly for the bad guys,” Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, told me this afternoon. Davis provided few details, saying they were classified, He did say that the F-35s faced a threat that “we have never put an F-16 or a Harrier against.” The F-35Bs, he said, did a “great job.” I asked Davis about the recent news that the F-35A did not fare that well in dogfight conditions against an F-16. “I love the F-16. It was a great airplane. Still is pretty good, but i would not want to be in a fight against an F-35.” In a clear message to A-10 advocates, Davis said the F-35B performed extremely well at Close Air Support missions using Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) and laster-guided GBU-12s. The aircraft does need a cannon, he conceded, for some missions. The gun is currently undergoing its first tests mounted on an aircraft but it won’t be deployed on the plane until 2017 when the Block 3F software is installed. But Davis was unequivocal in his enthusiasm for the aircraft. “No airplane in the world will be able to touch this jet at Close Air Support,” he told reporters. Davis said he had made his recommendation about the F-35B’s Initial Operating Capabilitity to Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford: “He’s got all the paperwork now and he’s going through it.” Breaking D readers will remember that Dunford has been nominated to become the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and has been a bit busy recently dealing with nomination hearings and such. Davis said early models of the F-35B are currently maintaining a 60 percent to 65 percent mission readiness rate, something he expects to rise substantially as more newer planes come to the line. He noted a training squadron with newer planes was “getting 70 to 75 percent rates the other day.” The overall goal is 80 percent later in the program. The Marines plan to buy 353 F-35Bs and Davis said he has heard absolutely nothing to convince him that number should be cut. It seems pretty certain he has recommended to Dunford that IOC be approved, but, as he put it, that’s the commandant’s decision.

So what was the flames coming from the bomb about?

A few pilots from abroad did that during WWII because they weren't used to planes with retractable gear.

When did Nevada become available?

I find feet much easier for landing. Metres are kind of large when you're that close to the ground. However, if I was doing a calculation for anything scientific I would always convert to SI (metres) because I'm not messing around with scaling factors during complicated calculations, that's how c0ck-ups happen. For other things they just make sense due to scale. E.g. thrust-to-weight ratios for fighters. lbf is usually close to lbs weight in magnitude. Newtons aren't particularly close to anything.

It's okay, I screwed up, one of them is a faded 19, that looks like a 15.:doh: